Opinion
23-55253
01-19-2024
In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG, Debtor. v. KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG; RONALD HILLS, Appellees. IVAN RENE MOORE, Appellant,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:22-cv-06465-MEMF Otis D. Wright II, 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 dismissing 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.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing 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 could not dismiss Moore's appeal once the parties had submitted briefs.
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).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
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.