Case Name: Krishna K. REDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alicemarie H. STOTLER, Judge, Defendant-Appellee, Superior and Municipal Court of California, for the County of San Bernardino; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 03-56283; D.C. No. CV-97-00923-AHS
Parties: Krishna K. REDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alicemarie H. STOTLER, Judge, Defendant—Appellee, Superior and Municipal Court of California, for the County of San Bernardino; et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 905–905

Head Matter:
Krishna K. REDDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alicemarie H. STOTLER, Judge, Defendant—Appellee, Superior and Municipal Court of California, for the County of San Bernardino; et al., Defendants.
No. 03-56283.
D.C. No. CV-97-00923-AHS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Krishna K. Reddy, Redlands, CA, pro se.
Alan K. Marks, Esq., Office of the County Counsel, Bradley R. White, Esq., Granowitz & White, San Bernardino, CA, Ronald Y. Larson, Thompson and Colegate, Riverside, CA, Scott P. Cooper, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq., James M. Harris, Esq., Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Leon W. Weidman, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Krishna K. Reddy appeals pro se the district court's entry of a vexatious litigant order and order rejecting the filing of a proposed complaint pursuant to the vexatious litigant order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.1990), and affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a vexatious litigant order against Reddy because the order was narrowly tailored, based upon a clear record of prior frivolous filings, and entered after Reddy filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147-48 (9th Cir.1990). The district court did not err in rejecting the filing of the proposed complaint because Reddy failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order.
Reddy's remaining contentions are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.