Jeremiah William Balik v. County of Ventura; 99th Security Forces Nellis Afb; Bmo Harris Bank, N.a.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMIAH WILLIAM BALIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF VENTURA; 99TH
SECURITY FORCES NELLIS AFB; BMO
HARRIS BANK, N.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15831
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00679-CDS-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023 **
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jeremiah William Balik appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing under a vexatious litigant pre-filing order his action alleging federal and
state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
* 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
OCT 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15831
abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Balik’s action
because Balik failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against
him. See id. at 1091 (explaining that a district court may dismiss an action where a
litigant attempts to avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different
court).
To the extent that Balik seeks to challenge the underlying vexatious litigant
order, we do not consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of this
appeal.
We reject as meritless Balik’s contention that he was entitled to a default
judgment.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
County of Ventura’s motion to submit the case on the briefs (Docket Entry
No. 20) is granted. All other pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --