NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MYKAL S. RYAN, No. 14-55434
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00685-JAH-
KSC
v.
MARY T. MORGAN; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mykal S. Ryan appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him
permission to file a complaint alleging federal and state law claims for computer-
related offenses, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
application of a vexatious litigant order. In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ryan permission to
file his complaint because Ryan’s proposed complaint was nearly identical to his
previously dismissed complaints and was precisely the type of action the vexatious
litigant order was designed to prevent.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ryan’s requests for injunctive and
declaratory relief and monetary damages with respect to the state court civil
judgments against him. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Under Rooker–Feldman, a federal district court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court. The
United States Supreme Court is the only federal court with jurisdiction to hear such
an appeal.”).
We deny Ryan’s request to vacate the vexatious litigant order because, as
explained in Case No. 12-57285, Ryan failed to file a timely notice of appeal of the
vexatious litigant order or a timely post-judgment motion.
We reject Ryan’s contentions regarding prejudice by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55434