Summary
describing sanction order of a prefiling review
Summary of this case from Rocha v. Fiedler (In re Fiedler)Opinion
21-16104
01-24-2023
MICHAEL S. IOANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. And SHELLY J. IOANE; PARADISE SOLUTIONS, Plaintiffs,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 18, 2023[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. 5:99-cv-21119-SW Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Michael S. Ioane appeals pro se from the district court's order denying, under a prefiling review order, Ioane's motion to reopen his bankruptcy case to file a new adversary proceeding challenging a nonjudicial foreclosure of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the application of a prefiling review order. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ioane leave to file the motion to reopen to file a new adversary proceeding because the filing was within the scope of the district court's prefiling review order. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) ("District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. . . . Such pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that support the merits of the case."). A prior panel of this court affirmed the district court's prefiling review order in No. 00-16145, and we will not reconsider that decision. See Martinson v. Michael (In re Michael), 163 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that, under the law of the case, a panel generally will not reconsider issues decided by another panel in a prior appeal in the same case).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).