
    Jackie MELLOW; Sharon A. Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17053.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2010.
    
      Jackie Mellow, Rio Linda, CA, pro se.
    Sharon A. Martin, Rio Linda, CA, pro se.
    Laura Jean Marabito, Esquire, Thomas Leroy Riordan, Porter Scott, Bobbie J. Montoya, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Brian N. Winn, Winn Law Group APC, Fullerton, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jackie Mellow and Sharon A. Martin appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging a conspiracy among government officials to interfere with their property rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Gaskell v. Weir, 10 F.3d 626, 628 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 because the record supports the conclusion that Plaintiffs filed the action for purposes of harassment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 (stating that a court may sanction a party sua sponte, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, for filing a pleading presented for an improper purpose); Hudson v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 836 F.2d 1156, 1163 (9th Cir.1987) (“The district court has wide discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a Rule 11 violation.”).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977) (discussing five guidelines to determine whether the “extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is warranted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     