Sulista
Smith v. Sulista
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
David L. Smith appeals pro se the district court’s order imposing sanctions on him for filing frivolous actions regarding a property foreclosure. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to impose sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc. v. Wilson, 826 F.3d 1096,1109 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.
A district court may impose Rule 11 sanctions if a paper filed with the court is for an improper purpose, or if it is frivolous. See Fed.R.Civ.P. ll(b)(1)-(2); Townsend v. Holman Consulting, 929 F.2d 1358 , 1362 (9th Cir.1990) (en banc). In its dismissal order, the district court found that Smith’s action was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003), that it constituted his fourth effort to collaterally attack disputed state court decisions in federal court, and that Smith had been warned by the court to stop litigating issues already decided by the state court. Based on these findings, the district court acted within its discretion in imposing sanctions. See G.C. and K.B. Investments, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1109-10.