Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Genay L. Amerson, Petitioner v. Nevada Education Corporation, dba Las Vegas College, et al.
Supreme Court briefJun 19, 2026
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Case: 26-1027, 03/23/2026, DktEntry: 138.1, Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
MAR 23 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GENAY L. AMERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA EDUCATION
CORPORATION, doing business as Las
Vegas College; et al.,
No. 26-1027
D.C. No.
2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
District of Nevada,
Las Vegas
ORDER
Defendants - Appellees.
Before: OWENS, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
After considering the response to the court’s March 5,2026 order and the
opening brief, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
DISMISSED.
Case 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
Document 249
Filed 02/09/26
Page lot 5
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
GENAY L. AMERSON
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
Case No. 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
DISMISSAL ORDER
v.
LAS VEGAS COLLEGE, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
Throughout the course of this litigation, Plaintiff Genay L. Amerson has repeatedly
14
attempted to engage in ex parte—or otherwise improper—communications with this Court.
15
Consequently, on September 9, 2025, the Court warned Ms. Amerson that her conduct was
16
inappropriate; furthermore, the Court advised Ms. Amerson that further attempts to improperly
17
contact—or inappropriately interact with—Court personnel could result in case-dispositive
18
sanctions. See ECF No. 159 (minute order) (“If Plaintiff seeks to contact chambers again in
19
violation of this order, the Court will impose sanctions. These sanctions can include ... case-
20
dispositive sanctions.”). Since then, Ms. Amerson has ignored the Court’s warning. Instead, she
21
has incessantly attempted to contact Chambers staff, and she has engaged in disrespectful behavior
22
toward Court personnel. Based on Plaintiff’s own actions, the Court finds that dismissal is
23
appropriate at this time.
24
25
26
27
28
I.
BACKGROUND
Initially, the Court briefly outlines some of Plaintiff’s attempts to engage in ex parte
communications in spite of the Court’s September 9, 2025, Order.
On Friday, September 26, 2025, Ms. Amerson called Chambers to demand the expedited
Case 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
Document 249
Filed 02/09/26
Page 2 of 5
1
consideration of one of her motions. See ECF No. 186 at 4. As is customary, Ms. Amerson was
2
told that her motion was pending before the Court and that it would be reviewed in due course.
3
Dissatisfied, Ms. Amerson re-dialed. Once again, she was told that her motion would be reviewed
4
in due course; furthermore, Ms. Amerson was also advised that Chambers could not engage in ex
5
parte communications with her. Ms. Amerson covertly recorded this conversation in spite of
6
Nevada law. See ECF No. 186; see also Nev Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650 (West 2025).
7
On December 29, 2025, Ms. Amerson approached the Clerk of Court’s office at the Lloyd
8
D. George United States Courthouse to submit evidence. While there, Ms. Amerson argued with
9
court staff and recorded her interactions within the building. Eventually, she demanded to speak
10
with the Clerk’s supervisor. Ms. Amerson was escorted from the building by the United States
11
Marshals Service.
12
From December 29, 2025, through December 30, 2025, Ms. Amerson called Chambers a
13
total of thirteen times. Amongst other things, she demanded that this Court “do its job.” Since then,
14
Ms. Amerson has continued to contact Chambers on a regular, ex parte basis with an ever-growing
15
slew of demands. Despite repeated warnings, she has continued to call Chambers on an almost
16
daily basis for the past month-and-a-half.
The Court notes that these incidents are merely a sampling of Ms. Amerson’s attempts to
17
18
engage in ex parte communications with Chambers.
19
20
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
21
This Court has the inherent authority to dismiss a case when a plaintiff violates its order(s).
22
See Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We have repeatedly
23
upheld ... dismissal for failure to comply with ... court orders.”) (citations omitted). “Federal
24
courts possess certain ‘inherent powers,’ not conferred by rule or statute, ‘to manage their own
25
affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Am. Unites for Kids v.
26
Rousseau. 985 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger.
27
581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017)). Through these powers, district courts have “the ability to fashion an
28
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
-2-
Case 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
Document 249
Filed 02/09/26
Page 3 of 5
1
581 U.S. at 107 (citation and quotation marks omitted). For instance, a “district court may, among
2
other things, dismiss a case in its entirety, bar witnesses, exclude other evidence, award attorneys’
3
fees, or assess fines.” Am. Unites for Kids, 985 F.3d at 1088 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
4
Of course, this Court’s inherent powers are not limitless; they do not supply carte blanche
5
authority to sanction parties. Instead, these powers are subject to judicial constraints, which have
6
been crafted by the federal courts over time. First and foremost, a district court must find that a
7
party willfully violated its order(s), or acted in bad faith, to sanction the party based on the court’s
8
inherent powers. See id. at 1090 (citation omitted).
9
Assuming that a district court makes this threshold finding, it should not dismiss the party’s
10
case unless the case presents “extreme circumstances” that satisfy certain criteria established by
11
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th
12
Cir. 1998). Specifically, this Court must consider five factors (“Dispositive Sanction Factors”)
13
“before resorting to the penalty of dismissal: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of
14
litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)
15
the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
16
sanctions.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. When
17
a district court is considering a sua sponte dismissal, it must place “special focus on considerations
18
relating to the fifth [ ] factor.” Hernandez, 138 F.3d at 399 (citation omitted).
19
20
III.
DISCUSSION
21
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Ms. Amerson has willfully violated its prior
22
order because she has continuously contacted Chambers in an ex parte—and improper—manner.
23
See ECF No. 159 (minute order expressly prohibiting Plaintiff from engaging in ex parte
24
communications with Chambers staff).
25
26
Next, the Court concludes that Ms. Amerson’s case should be dismissed because all but
one of the Dispositive Sanction Factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
27
First, the Court finds that the public’s interest in the expeditious resolution of this litigation
28
and the Court’s need to manage its own docket both weigh in favor of dismissal. See Adriana Int’l
-3-
Case 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
Document 249
Filed 02/09/26
Page 4 of 5
1
Corp, v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Where a court order is violated, [these]
2
first two factors support sanctions ....”). After all, Ms. Amerson’s incessant ex parte
3
communications with Chambers squander court resources, delay the swift resolution of her case,
4
and disrupt this Court’s ability to manage its own affairs.
5
Similarly, the Court finds that the risk of prejudice to Defendants also weighs in favor of
6
dismissal. “In determining whether a defendant has been prejudiced, [this Court] examines
7
whether the plaintiffs actions impair the defendant’s ability to go to trial or threaten to interfere
8
with the rightful decision of the case.” Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv„ 833 F.2d 128, 131 (9th Cir.
9
1987) (citation omitted); see also Hernandez v. City of El Monte. 138 F.3d 393,399 (9th Cir. 1998)
10
(same). Ms. Amerson’s course of conduct undoubtedly threatens to interfere with the disposition
11
of this case. Put simply, ex parte communications are almost always inappropriate because they
12
undermine the apparent, and sometimes actual, neutrality of a tribunal. See Guenther v. C.I.R., 889
13
F.2d 882, 884 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted) [hereinafter, “Guenther I”]. Accordingly, they
14
can create a constitutional violation that invalidates a court’s proceedings. See Guenther v. C.I.R.,
15
939 F.2d 758, 760-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted) [hereinafter, “Guenther II”]. Therefore,
16
Ms. Amerson’s ongoing attempts to engage in ex parte contact with this Court threaten to implode
17
these proceedings, even though Defendants have spent well over a year litigating this case.
18
The Court also finds that less drastic sanctions are not available in this case, such that the
19
fifth factor weighs in favor of dismissal. To recap, the Court has already advised Ms. Amerson
20
that ex parte communications are wholly inappropriate. The Court has already ordered Ms.
21
Amerson to stop attempting to communicate with Chambers in an ex parte fashion. And the Court
22
has already warned Ms. Amerson that further attempts to contact Chambers outside of the docket
23
would result in severe, case-dispositive sanctions. Nonetheless, Ms. Amerson has continuously
24
attempted to engage in ex parte communications with this Court. At this juncture, the Court has
25
few options left. It could enter a second order that, once again, prohibits Ms. Amerson from
26
contacting Chambers outside of the docket. But the reality of repeating an ignored order is that it
27
only delays the inevitable. Since this Court does not have to exhaust every conceivable sanction
28
before finally dismissing a case, the Court concludes that there are no “possible and meaningful
-4-
Case 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
Document 249
Filed 02/09/26
Page 5 of 5
1
alternatives” to dismissal. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation
2
omitted).
Finally, although the public policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits cuts
3
4
against dismissal, the Court finds that it is greatly outweighed by the factors favoring dismissal.
5
In sum, Ms. Amerson has willfully violated this Court’s prior order. The Dispositive
6
Sanction Factors weigh in favor of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court invokes its inherent powers
7
to dismiss Ms. Amerson’s case.
8
9
IV.
CONCLUSION
10
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
11
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED all pending motions (ECF Nos. 109, 158, 160, 162, 164,
12
165, 166,168, 174, 176, 177, 180, 188, 208, 218, 223, 224, 227, 239, 242) are DENIED as moot.
13
The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. No
14
other documents may be filed in this now closed case.
15
16
DATED: February 9, 2026.
17
18
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
Case 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
Document 250
Filed 02/09/26
Page 1 of 1
AO450 (NVD Rev. 2/18) Judgment in a Civil Case
United States District Court
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Genay L Amerson
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Plaintiff,
Case Number: 2:24-cv-01589-RFB-EJY
v.
Las Vegas College, et al
Defendants.
__
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and
the jury has rendered its verdict.
__
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried
or heard and a decision has been rendered.
X
Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The issues have been
considered and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
JUDGMENT entered in favor of Defendants Nevada Education Corporation, Mikhail Education Corporation,
and against Plaintiff Genay L Amerson with prejudice.
02/09/2026
DEBRA K. KEMPI
Clerk
Date
IQf
3
Zs/MAM________
Deputy Clerk
Additional material
from this filing is
available in the
Clerk's Office.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.