MICHAEL OWEN DeVAUGHN v. Darren Mannion;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL OWEN DeVAUGHN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DARREN MANNION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-56723
D.C. No. 5:10-cv-00892-TJH-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Owen DeVaughn appeals pro se from the
district court’s order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action revoking his application to
proceed in forma pauperis as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. We review for an abuse of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56723
discretion. Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 757 F3d. 870, 872 (9th Cir.
2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking DeVaughn’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis as a sanction under Rule 11 because
DeVaughn’s complaint misrepresented his prior federal litigation history. See
Warren v. Guelker, 29 F.3d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir. 1994) (a pro se prisoner’s
misrepresentation about previous lawsuits may justify sanctions under Rule 11).
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and distinctly raised
and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --