Opinion
22-55811
01-19-2024
In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG, Debtor. v. KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG, Appellee. IVAN RENE MOORE, Appellant,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 17, 2024 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 2:22-cv-04454-PA Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court's order administratively closing his bankruptcy appeal pursuant to a prefiling vexatious litigant order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).[ We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
We reject as meritless appellee's contention that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in administratively closing Moore's appeal because Moore failed to comply with the prefiling order previously entered against him in 2018. 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)); Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al., No. 2:17-cv-04828-ODW (GJS), 2018 WL 2264207 at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (prefiling order).
We reject as meritless Moore's contentions that the 2018 prefiling order is moot and that the district court violated Moore's constitutional rights.
We do not consider Moore's challenges to the 2018 prefiling order because it is outside the scope of this appeal.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Moore's motion to file a corrected reply brief (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted. The Clerk will file the corrected reply brief received at Docket Entry No. 21.
All other 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). Moore's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.