NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER T. HARRELL, No. 18-16562 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01595-KJM- GGH v. HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES MEMORANDUM* DISTRICT, a California Municipal Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs in his action alleging a variety of federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s award of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions. Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding fees and costs to defendants as a sanction under § 1927 because Harrell “evidenced bad faith in multiplying the proceedings in this case unreasonably and vexatiously.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 1235-36 (“Section 1927 sanctions may be imposed upon a pro se plaintiff.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-16562