United States v. 2020-12-10 | 19-55905 | DAVID WHITEHEAD V. NETFLIX, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NETFLIX, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55905

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05500-JFW-RAO

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

David Louis Whitehead appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his action under a pre-filing vexatious litigant order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Moy v.
United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

*
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

DEC 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-55905
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Whitehead’s
proposed filings and dismissing his action because the filings were within the
scope of the district court’s pre-filing vexatious litigant order. See Weissman v.
Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the
inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with
abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the
litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain
requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court . . . .” (internal citation
removed)).
We reject as without merit Whitehead’s contentions that the district judge
and magistrate judges should have recused themselves from this action.
Whitehead’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.