Case Name: Clarence HAYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen J. HILLMAN, Magistrate Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-06
Citations: 398 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 08-56338
Parties: Clarence HAYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen J. HILLMAN, Magistrate Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Clarence HAYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen J. HILLMAN, Magistrate Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-56338.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Oct. 6, 2010.
Clarence Haywood, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.
Robert I. Lester, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorneys Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.