
    YAN SUI; Pei-Yu Yang, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard Alan MARSHACK, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56130
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 18, 2017
    Yan Sui, Pro Se
    Pei-Yu Yang, Pro Se
    Chad V. Haes, Attorney, D. Edward Hays, Esquire, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Richard Alan Marshack, Jess Bressi, R.C. Stottlemeyer, Judith E. Marshack, Chanel Mendoza, Pickford Real Estate Co., Clarence Yoshikane, D. Edward Hays
    D. Edward Hays, Esquire, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Marshack & Hays, LLC, Chad V. Haes
    Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees for David M. Goodrich
    David M. Goodrich, Pro Se
    Marium Moore, Esquire, Selman Breit-man LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee for Scottsdale Insurance Co,
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims against, among others, a bankruptcy judge and the chapter 7 trustee representing Sui’s bankruptcy estate. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a court’s imposition of sanctions under its inherent power. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing terminating sanctions under its “inherent equitable powers to dismiss actions for ... abusive litigation practices.” TeleVideo Sys. Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 916 (9th Cir. 1987).

We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court demonstrated bias.

Appellants’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     