Dimov

MEMORANDUM *

Jim Dimov appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his action seeking a declaration that Local Rule 27A of the United States District Court for the Central District of California and Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 391 (West 2001), both of which concern vexatious litigants, are unconstitutional. Dimov also appeals the denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in which he asserted that the district court judge should have recused herself. We have jurisdiction under to review the dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court did not err in dismissing Dimov’s complaint challenging the constitutionality of District Court Local Rule 27A and Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 391. Dimov’s assertion that, because he was adjudicated to be a vexatious litigant by the California state court, Local Rule 27A bars him from bringing a lawsuit pro se in federal court, is based on a misunderstanding of the interplay between the local rule and the California statute. Local Rule 27A’s only reference to Cal.Code Civ. Proc. § 391 is permissive and concerns procedures, not substance. Because Local Rule 27A has never…