Frederick E. Watson v. Anthony J. Trepel Daniel E. Lungren and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

57 F.3d 1079 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Frederick E. WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony J. TREPEL; Daniel E. Lungren; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 94-16274, 94-16585. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 13, 1995. * Decided June 9, 1995. 1 Before: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Frederick E. Watson appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. We affirm. The district court correctly dismissed Watson's action as barred by the "law of the case" established by this court in the Kruse appeal. See Pit River Home and Agricultural Coop. Ass'n v. United States, 30 F.3d 1088, 1096-97 (9th Cir.1994). The district court also properly awarded sanctions. Watson's argument that the district court in Kruse did not have jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions is legally…