22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T498,MEMORANDUM Robert Langermann - appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising out of the administration of a class action settlement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying a motion to transfer. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Langermann’s motion to transfer this action to theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida because Langermann was enjoined from further prosecuting the instant action. See McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 953 (9th Cir.2011) (an abuse of discretion exists only where there is a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment). We reject Langermann’s contentions regarding denial of access to courts, the district court’s sanction warning, and unequal treatment by the district court and the Eleventh Circuit. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ca,

MEMORANDUM

Robert Langermann - appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising out of the administration of a class action settlement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying a motion to transfer. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Langermann’s motion to transfer this action to theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida because Langermann was enjoined from further prosecuting the instant action. See McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939, 953 (9th Cir.2011) (an abuse of discretion exists only where there is a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment).

We reject Langermann’s contentions regarding denial of access to courts, the district court’s sanction warning, and unequal treatment by the district court and the Eleventh Circuit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.