Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sergey Firsov sued Skytripfare, LLC and other defendants in the Northern District of California. On October 2, 2026, the court dismissed the action without prejudice to re-filing in conformance with a pre-filing screening requirement imposed by Judge Edward M. Chen in a separate case, Firsov v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-03691-EMC. Judge Chen first ordered pre-filing screening of Firsov's lawsuits on June 23, 2026, and expanded the scope of that order on August 21, 2026. Firsov then asked him to reconsider. On August 31, 2026, Judge Chen granted reconsideration but left the amended screening order in place.
After the dismissal, Firsov filed two motions. On October 6, 2026, he sought leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration. He asserted that the court had relied on a void amended order that Judge Chen had cancelled, and he cited Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014), for the point that an overbroad pre-filing order can be vacated. On October 13, 2026, he moved for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He argued that he could not have complied with the amended screening order because this case was filed before the amendment. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín resolved the motions in the order in which they were filed.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied leave to seek reconsideration for two reasons. First, Firsov's premise was wrong. Judge Chen had not vacated or cancelled his order. He issued it on June 23, 2026, expanded it on August 21, 2026, and, although he granted reconsideration, kept the amended screening order in place on August 31, 2026. Second, the court construed Firsov's reliance on Ringgold-Lockhart as an argument that Judge Chen's order was overbroad, and it declined to review that order. It relied on Zeyen v. Bonneville Joint Dist. #93, 114 F.4th 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2024), which says that judges who sit in the same court should not attempt to overrule one another's decisions.
The court also denied the Rule 60(b) motion. It said Firsov's timing argument carried some appeal. But it explained that deciding whether the amended screening order applies to this case would require reviewing Judge Chen's order, because that order expressly includes this case within its scope. The court declined to do so and noted that only the Court of Appeals holds that privilege. It did not decide whether an amended screening order may properly reach a case filed before the amendment.
The order concludes that both post-dismissal motions are denied and that no further filings will be considered in this closed case. It does not address the merits of Firsov's claims against the defendants. The earlier dismissal was without prejudice to re-filing in conformance with the screening requirement, so this order does not itself bar a compliant re-filing.
Key Takeaways
- A district judge asked for reconsideration or Rule 60(b) relief may decline when the request depends on reviewing another judge's pre-filing screening order in the same court.
- A reconsideration request built on the claim that a prior order was cancelled will fail where the record shows the order was expanded and then left in place after reconsideration.
- The court did not decide whether an amended screening order can validly apply to a case filed before the amendment. It held only that it would not second-guess Judge Chen's determination that his order covers this case.
- Denying the post-dismissal motions does not adjudicate the underlying claims, and the earlier dismissal was without prejudice to re-filing in conformance with the screening requirement.
- This is an unpublished district court order applying Zeyen to its facts, so it has no precedential weight.
Why It Matters
This order shows how the Ninth Circuit's rule against same-court overruling operates when a litigant subject to a pre-filing screening order challenges that order before a different judge in a separate case. The judge treated Judge Chen's order as off limits and resolved the motions on that basis, without ruling on the fairness of the order's reach.
The question Firsov raised remains open: whether the amended screening order can validly apply to an action filed before the amendment. The court itself said the argument had some appeal, but it left the question to Judge Chen or the court of appeals. Litigants subject to such orders should direct challenges to the issuing judge or to appellate review rather than to other judges in the district.