OU YOUNG v. HARRIS (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Kuang-Bao Ou-Young appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the application of a pre-filing order. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Ou-Young's complaint and dismissing his action, because the claims alleged were within the scope of the district court's pre-filing restrictions imposed on him as a vexatious litigant. See West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize the filing of a complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court's authority to effectuate compliance with its earlier order”).

We reject as without merit Ou-Young's contentions that the dismissal of his action was in violation of his constitutional rights or premature, or that the district court “falsified dismissal.”

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).

We do not consider Ou-Young's renewed motion for summary reversal (Docket Entry No. 28). In Docket Entry No. 25, this court denied Ou-Young's renewed motions for summary reversal and ordered that no motions for reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or entertained.

AFFIRMED.