Case Name: Cenobio Humberto HERRERA, Sr., a.k.a. Bert Herrera, a.k.a. Cenobio Humberto Lanz, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-28
Citations: 583 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 13-56846
Parties: Cenobio Humberto HERRERA, Sr., a.k.a. Bert Herrera, a.k.a. Cenobio Humberto Lanz, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 820–820

Head Matter:
Cenobio Humberto HERRERA, Sr., a.k.a. Bert Herrera, a.k.a. Cenobio Humberto Lanz, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-56846.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 28, 2014.
Cenobio Humberto Herrera, Sr., Lom-poc, CA, pro se.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Dorothy C. Kim, Tracy L. Wilkison, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Cenobio Humberto Herrera, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court's order declaring him a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing restriction against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, see Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Herrera a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing restriction against him. The court gave Herrera notice and an opportunity to be heard, developed an adequate record for review, made findings regarding Herrera's frivolous litigation history, and tailored the restriction narrowly. See id. at 1057-58 (discussing the four factors a district court must consider before imposing a pre-filing restriction on a vexatious litigant).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.