Opinion
No. 18-15081
06-21-2018
E. K. WADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-mc-80163-JD MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
James Donato, District Judge, Presiding Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
E. K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court's order denying Wade leave to file a complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a pre-filing order. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Wade a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing order against him. See id. at 1057-61. The court provided Wade with notice and an opportunity to respond, discussed Wade's numerous prior lawsuits, found the lawsuits to be frivolous and harassing, and narrowly tailored its order to address Wade's particular abuses. See id. Contrary to Wade's contention, the district court properly exercised its inherent power under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to enter the pre-filing order. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to accept Wade's proposed complaints for filing because Wade's proposed complaints fall within the scope of the prefiling order entered against him. See West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize filing of complaint was a "proper exercise of the district court's authority to effectuate compliance with its earlier order").
AFFIRMED.