Gavin Davis v. Jason Adler

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 18-56168 · 2019-04-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal
Trial court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge: Anthony J. Battaglia (district judge)
Outcome: affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area: civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GAVIN B. DAVIS, No. 18-56168 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00387-AJB-JLB v. MEMORANDUM* JASON M. ADLER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gavin B. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order rejecting documents submitted for filing in Davis’s action alleging trademark and privacy claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 * 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). (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its inherent power to reject documents for filing because they were submitted over one year after the district court closed Davis’s case. See id. at 404 (district court has inherent power to control its docket, including power to strike items from the docket); Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules.”).

We do not consider Davis’s contentions concerning his prior appeal in Case No. 17-56945, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute on April 3, 2018.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-56168