Parviz Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department Darryl Gates, Police Chief City of Los Angeles Tom Bradley Sid Mills

Citations: 15 F.3d 1086; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 6777; 1994 WL 5524Docket: 92-55131

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; January 5, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 specifies that non-published dispositions are not precedential and should only be cited in limited circumstances. Parviz Karim-Panahi, the plaintiff-appellant, is appealing the district court's judgment favoring the defendants, including the Los Angeles Police Department and its officials, in his civil rights action, specifically regarding count three, which alleged conspiracy to violate his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985. The appeal also concerns the dismissal of his remaining claims. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirms the district court's judgment. 

The court's review is confined to specific orders related to the case, and it cannot address Karim-Panahi's attempt to contest the denial of his motion to disqualify Judge Rea as it falls outside the appeal's scope. Karim-Panahi claims that the jury verdict on count three was erroneous, but he fails to provide substantive reasoning or evidence of error, leading the court to conclude that his arguments are insufficient for review. Consequently, the judgment on count three is affirmed.

Regarding the dismissal of the remaining claims, Karim-Panahi argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss after his notice of appeal. The court rejects this argument, clarifying that a district court retains jurisdiction over non-certified claims even after an appeal is initiated. Thus, the dismissal of his remaining claims for failure to comply with a sanction order is upheld.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court upheld the imposition of a $10,000 sanction on Karim-Panahi under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for filing frivolous motions. These motions included unfounded claims against Judge Rea for bias and conspiracy, which the court deemed baseless and lacking reasonable inquiry. Judge Davies issued an order to show cause (OSC) regarding the sanction, to which Karim-Panahi responded by seeking Judge Davies' disqualification instead of addressing the OSC. Ultimately, Judge Davies found that Karim-Panahi's actions vexatiously multiplied proceedings and harassed both the defendants and Judge Rea. 

Karim-Panahi's assertion that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his action for failing to pay the sanction was also rejected. The court found that he did not make a good faith effort to comply with the sanction order, as evidenced by his filings, leading to the conclusion that dismissal was warranted. The court affirmed the dismissal and denied Karim-Panahi's request for oral argument, deeming the case suitable for decision without it.

The disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under specific rules. The court rejects the argument that Karim-Panahi's motion to disqualify Judge Davies removed the judge's authority to hold a hearing on an order issued against Karim-Panahi on March 18, 1991. On August 1, 1991, Karim-Panahi submitted an affidavit claiming he made a good-faith effort to comply with the sanction order, attaching eight exhibits indicating outstanding debts, most of which were dated from 1978 to 1988, with one from 1990 showing a debt of $83. The court has ruled on all but three of Karim-Panahi's numerous motions related to this appeal, which were previously lodged for consideration. Those three motions are now denied. Additionally, the court denies Karim-Panahi's motions to compel the submission of an original transcript and his request for payment of pro se living expenses.