Anthony OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie Michelle LUNER; Does, 1-10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: November 16, 2020
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Oliver, Pro Se Diana Spielberger, Law Offices of Diana Spielberger, Los Angeles, CA, Jay Statman, Attorney, Law Offices of Jay Statman, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Anthony Oliver appeals pro se from the district court's post-judgment order declaring him a vexatious litigant and requiring pre-filing review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Oliver a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See id. at 1062 (setting forth requirements for pre-filing review orders).
To the extent Oliver challenges the underlying judgment dismissing his action, we do not consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of this appeal.
We reject as without merit Oliver's contentions that the district court later amended the vexatious litigant order to add a bond requirement, that the district court lacked authority to enter the vexatious litigant order sua sponte, and that Oliver was entitled to a hearing.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.