Cheryl Kelmar v. PHILIP GUTIERREZ, Judge; FINK, Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHERYL KELMAR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHILIP GUTIERREZ, Judge; FINK, Judge,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; et
al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-55722
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06826-PSG-RGK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Cheryl Kelmar appeals pro se from the district court’s order rejecting her
* 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
JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55722
proposed complaint 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.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Kelmar’s proposed
complaint because the complaint was 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 omitted)).
We reject as without merit Kelmar’s contention that the district judge should
have recused himself from this action.
We do not consider Kelmar’s contentions regarding the underlying merits of
her proposed complaint or the vexatious litigant orders against her in the Central
District of California and Santa Barbara County Superior Court because those
issues are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --