Huggins
Huggins v. Hynes
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Harold Huggins, a former student at the University of California at Santa Barbara, appeals pro se the district court’s orders: (1) finding him to be a vexatious litigant; (2) denying his motion to amend a complaint; and (3) denying his motion for a discovery order. These orders all relate to a lawsuit stemming from Huggins’s allegations that university officials graded him based on race and worked to force him out of the engineering department. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion a vexatious litigant order, De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 , 1146 (9th Cir.1990), denial of leave to amend a complaint, Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004), and denial of a discovery order, United States v. Hoffman, 794 F.2d 1429, 1431 (9th Cir.1986). We review de novo Huggins’s claim that the vexatious litigant order violates his due process rights. United States v. Clifford Matley Family Trust, 354 F.3d 1154 , 1161 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2004) We affirm.
Huggins’s motion to file a substitute second opening brief is granted. The clerk shall file the “Second Opening Brief’ lodged August 26, 2004.