Opinion
22-55045
05-23-2023
BENJAMIN WOODHOUSE, A Citizen of the United States, Resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:21-cv-06372-SB
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Benjamin Woodhouse appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action under prefiling vexatious litigant orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Woodhouse's action because his complaint was within the scope of the district court's prefiling vexatious litigant orders and Woodhouse failed to comply with the prefiling requirements. 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 ...." (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Woodhouse's requests for entry of default because Woodhouse's requests were frivolous. See Speiser, Krause &Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Woodhouse's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 32) is denied.
All pending requests in the briefing are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).