From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Warner v. Stefalo

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2022
No. 21-35255 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022)

Opinion

21-35255

10-18-2022

DANNY LEE WARNER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TERRIE STEFALO; LYNN GUYER; JAMES SALMONSON; REGINA DEES-SHEFFIELD; SUSAN TRUEAX; PATRICK MCTIGHE; CYNTHIA WOLKEN; HENSON, Chief; JANE AND JOHN DOES, 1-5, Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 12, 2022

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding No. 4:19-cv-00003-BMM

Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Danny Lee Warner, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing as a sanction his action alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., and the First Amendment that arose while he was a Montana state prisoner. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990) (imposition of sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11); Mark Indus., Ltd. v. Sea Captain's Choice, Inc., 50 F.3d 730, 732 (9th Cir. 1995) (imposition of sanction under the court's inherent power). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Warner's action under Rule 11 and its inherent authority because it determined Warner had filed documents with the court for the improper purpose of deceiving the court as to the nature of the factual record. See Combs v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 927 F.2d 486, 488 (9th Cir. 1991) (submitting a falsified document to the court is sufficient grounds for a dismissal sanction under Rule 11); Wyle v. R.J. Reynolds Indus., Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) ("[C]ourts have inherent power to dismiss an action when a party has willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.").

Because we affirm the dismissal sanction, we do not consider the issues Warner raises concerning the district court's interlocutory orders. Cf. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (declining to review challenge to interlocutory orders where the action was dismissed as a sanction for failure to prosecute).

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).


Summaries of

Warner v. Stefalo

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 18, 2022
No. 21-35255 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Warner v. Stefalo

Case Details

Full title:DANNY LEE WARNER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TERRIE STEFALO; LYNN GUYER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 18, 2022

Citations

No. 21-35255 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2022)