Pierce
Pierce v. Itkin
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
In these consolidated appeals, Stephanie G. Pierce appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging that the defendants engaged in fraud and perjury in a prior civil suit, and the district court’s subsequent award of sanctions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
The district court properly construed Pierce’s complaint as a motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), and exercised removal jurisdiction. See Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773, 778 *608 (9th Cir.1994). We review for abuse of discretion a motion to reconsider or reopen under Rule 60(b) and the entry of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874 , 880 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 183 , 148 L.Ed.2d 126 (2000); Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1236 (9th Cir.1990).
In appeal No. 00-35158, we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s order filed January 14, 2000.
In appeal No. 00-35695, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 . See Wages, 915 F.2d…