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

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 08-56338
D.C. No. 5:03-cv-00996-DT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Haywood, a former California state court prisoner, appeals pro se
from the district court’s vexatious litigant order in his action under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
FILED
OCT 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-56338 2
against various judicial and quasi-judicial officers. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty
Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting pleadings that
Haywood tried to file in violation of a vexatious litigant order that had been
entered after giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing a record
for review, making findings of previous harassment and frivolous filings, and
narrowly tailoring the remedy. See id. at 1057 (explaining four factors that district
courts must examine before entering pre-filing review orders against vexatious
litigants). The record establishes that Haywood tried to circumvent, not comply
with, the vexatious litigant order, which required him to obtain leave of court
before filing future proceedings with an affidavit verifying under penalty of perjury
that the matters alleged in his proposed pleading were not frivolous and had not
been previously raised. Cf. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000)
(affirming dismissal of a bankruptcy petition filed to circumvent a vexatious
litigant order entered in bankruptcy court).
Haywood’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --