NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: WESTWOOD PLAZA NORTH, No. 18-55079
Debtor. D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00318-BRO
______________________________
SHMUEL ERDE, MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THEODOR NICKOLAS BODNAR; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Shmuel Erde appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying leave to
file various pleadings pursuant to a pre-filing restriction imposed on him as a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Erde’s requests for
leave to file various pleadings because the proposed filings were within the scope
of the pre-filing order. 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”).
To the extent Erde seeks to challenge the underlying pre-filing order, we do
not consider his contentions because such a challenge is outside the scope of this
appeal. See Valadez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851, 859 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-55079