Clarence Haywood v. STEPHEN J. HILLMAN, Magistrate Judge;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE HAYWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STEPHEN J. HILLMAN, Magistrate
Judge; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-56845
D.C. No. 5:03-cv-00996-DT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Clarence Haywood appeals pro se from the
district court’s order striking a document he filed in violation of a vexatious litigant
order issued in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
FILED
MAR 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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), and we affirm.
In a previous appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s imposition of a
vexatious litigant order against Haywood that required him to obtain the court’s
permission before filing any future claims regarding an alleged judicial conspiracy
to uphold his criminal convictions under California’s purportedly unconstitutional
three-strikes law. See Haywood v. Hillman, No. 08-56338, 398 F. App’x 296 (9th
Cir. Sep. 13, 2010). Because Haywood failed to obtain the court’s permission
before filing the document at issue in violation of the vexatious litigant order, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting it. Cf. In re Fillbach, 223
F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming the dismissal of a petition filed in the
district court to try to circumvent the bankruptcy court’s vexatious litigant order).
Haywood’s motion to expedite, filed on February 5, 2014, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
12-56845 2

-- 2 of 2 --