CHRISTIAN GILBERT NADAL, AKA Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTIAN GILBERT NADAL, AKA
Christian Gilbert Tony Nadal,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-55262
D.C. Nos. 2:21-cv-07590-RSWL
2:93-cr-00698-RSWL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Former federal prisoner Christian Gilbert Nadal appeals pro se from the
district court’s orders denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and
motion for reconsideration, and declaring him a vexatious litigant and requiring
pre-filing review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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).
FILED
NOV 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55262
Nadal first contends that he is entitled to coram nobis relief because he is
actually innocent. Reviewing de novo, we conclude that the district court properly
denied relief because Nadal did not demonstrate an error of the most fundamental
character. See United States v. Riedl, 496 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 2007)
(stating standard of review and requirements for coram nobis relief). For the same
reason, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993).
Nadal also challenges the pre-filing order, contending he has the right to
collaterally attack his conviction because the courts have not yet addressed his
request for declaratory relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See
De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990). Prior to declaring
Nadal a vexatious litigant, the district court provided Nadal notice and an
opportunity to oppose the order. The court then made an adequate record of the
numerous cases and motions over the past 28 years that led the court to conclude a
prefiling order was needed, made substantive findings of frivolousness based on
Nadal’s baseless and repetitive filings, and issued a narrowly tailored order that
applies only to proceedings concerning his 1993 conviction. On this record, the
pre-filing order was proper. See id. at 1147-48 (describing procedural
requirements a district court must follow before issuing a pre-filing order).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --