N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ELONZA JESSE TYLER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M IKE KNOW LES; LORI JOHNSON, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15480 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-02222-ODW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 *** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Elonz a Je s se Ty l e r, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t dism issing his ac tion for fa ilure to c om ply with a c ourt 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Otis D. W

right II, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).orde r and from the d i stric t c ourt’ s pre -filing orde r de c la ring him a ve xatious litiga nt a n d orde ring him

to provide se c urity . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w for an a buse of disc re tion. Molsk i v . Ev e rgre e n Dy nasty C

orp. , 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th C ir. 2007) (pe r c uriam ) (ve xatious litiga nt pre -filing orde r); Pagtalunan v . Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th C ir. 2002) (dism i ssa l for fa ilure to c om ply with a c ourt orde r). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

e nte ring a

pre -filing orde r a ga inst Ty l e r a fte r providing him notic e and a

n opportunity

to be he ard, de ve loping an a d e q uate re c ord for re vie w, m a k ing substa ntive findings re ga

rding his frivolous litiga tion history , a

nd ta iloring there stric tion na rrowly . Se e Molsk

i , 500 F.3d a

t 1057-61 (disc ussing fa c t ors for im posing pre -filing re s tric tions). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

re quiring Ty le r to post a se c urity a fte r de c la

ring him a ve xatious litiga

nt a nd finding tha

t he did not ha

ve a re a s ona ble proba bility of pre va iling on the

m e rits. Se e E.D. C a l. R . 151(b) (a dopting the

provisions of the

C a lifornia

C ode of C ivil Proc e dure re lating to orde ring ve xat ious litiga

nts to post a

se c urity ); Simulne t E. Assoc iate s v . Ramada Hote l Ope rating C

o. , 37 F.3d 573, 574 (9th C ir. 1994) (se tting forth the sta nda rd of re vie w); Hamilton v . K

e y stone Tank

ship C orp. , 539 F.2d 684, 686 (9th C ir. 1976) (“ R ule 83 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure a llows thedistric t c ourt to 1 4 - 1 5 4 8 0

2form

ulat e loc a l rule s to the e xte nt the y are not inc onsiste nt with the fe de ra l rule s.” ); Golin v . Alle nby , 118 C a l. R ptr. 3d 762, 781 (2010) (im position of a se c urity upon a ve xatious litiga

nt will be uphe ld if the re is substa ntia l e vide n c e to support thec ourt’ s de te rm inat i on tha t the pla intiff doe s not ha

ve a re a s ona ble proba b ility of pre va iling in the

a c tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing Ty le r’ s a c tion be c a use Ty le r fa ile d to c om

ply with the c o urt’ s Nove m

be r 13, 2012 orde r to post a se c urity de s pite be ing a fforde d signific a nt tim e to do so. Se e Pagtalunan , 291 F.3d a t 642 (disc ussing thefa c tors for de te rm ining whe the r to dism iss for fa ilure to c om ply with a c ourt orde r). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 4 8 0 3