Robert Langermann v. Patricia Seitz;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT LANGERMANN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA SEITZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15216
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01438-KJD-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Langermann appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising out of the administration of a class action settlement.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
FILED
SEP 08 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion a district court’s order denying a motion to transfer. Jones v. GNC
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Langermann’s
motion to transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida because Langermann was enjoined from further prosecuting the instant
action. See McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939,
953 (9th Cir. 2011) (an abuse of discretion exists only where there is a definite and
firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment).
We reject Langermann’s contentions regarding denial of access to courts, the
district court’s sanction warning, and unequal treatment by the district court and
the Eleventh Circuit.
AFFIRMED.
14-15216 2

-- 2 of 2 --