Opinion
No. 20-35017
05-26-2021
TIMOTHY C. ROTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01988-MO MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Timothy C. Rote appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The District Court for the District of Columbia did not abuse its discretion in transferring this action to the District of Oregon. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (providing for transfer to a district where an action might have been brought); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth factors for transfer of venue and standard of review).
The district court dismissed this action as precluded by the prior judgment entered in District Court Case No. 3:19-cv-00082-MO. However, this prior judgment has been vacated by our contemporaneous disposition in appeal No. 19-35847 and therefore no longer has preclusive effect on this action. See Cal. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Thompson, 321 F.3d 835, 847 (9th Cir. 2003) (once a decision of the district court is reversed or dismissed, the judgment cannot serve as the basis for a disposition on the grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel). We vacate the district court's judgment dismissing this action and remand for further proceedings. On remand the district court will address Rote's motion for disqualification.
The district court imposed pre-filing requirements on Rote but the requisite process for such an order was not followed. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061-67 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review; discussing procedural and substantive standards for a federal pre-filing order). We vacate the pre-filing order without prejudice to reimposing it using the requisite process.
The motions for disqualification (Docket Entry No. 53) and to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 54) are denied.
Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; and REMANDED.