In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG v. Kimberly Martin-Bragg; Ronald Hills

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG,
Debtor.
______________________________
IVAN RENE MOORE,
Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG; RONALD
HILLS,
Appellees.
No. 23-55253
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-06465-MEMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
* 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). Moore’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
JAN 19 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-55253
his bankruptcy appeal pursuant to a prefiling vexatious litigant order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. In re
Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Moore’s appeal
because Moore failed to comply with the prefiling order previously entered against
him in 2018. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.
1999) (“District courts have the inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders
against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. Such
pre-filing orders may enjoin the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless
he or she first meets certain requirements . . . .” (citation omitted)); Moore v. Wells
Fargo Bank, et al., No. 2:17-cv-04828-ODW (GJS), 2018 WL 2264207 at *2-3
(C.D. Cal. May 17, 2018) (prefiling order).
We reject as meritless Moore’s contentions that the 2018 prefiling order is
moot, and that the district court could not dismiss Moore’s appeal once the parties
had submitted briefs.
We do not consider Moore’s challenges to the 2018 prefiling order because
it is outside the scope of this appeal.
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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-55253
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --