Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny FABRICANT, aka Daniel Joseph Fabricant, aka Danny Joseph Fabricant, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-50130

Decided: November 26, 2019

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wilson Kyung Park, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ - Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Elizabeth Ryunsoo Yang, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division/Human Rights and Special Prosecutions, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee Danny Fabricant, Pro Se


Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate the order declaring him a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing restriction on him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court treated Fabricant's motion as arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which Fabricant does not challenge on appeal. We review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(5) motion for abuse of discretion. See SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 2001). Fabricant argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because the vexatious litigant/pre-filing order is a “scarlet letter” that is no longer warranted, prejudices him in civil litigation, and prevents him from challenging his conviction and sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion because Fabricant has not demonstrated any significant change in either factual conditions or the law, nor has he demonstrated that any changed circumstances have made his compliance with the order substantially more onerous, unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles, detrimental to the public interest, or legally impermissible. See id. at 942 (discussing conditions under which a district court may modify a court order under Rule 60(b)(5)).


Copied to clipboard