Case Name: ESTATE OF John James RYAN, Plaintiff, and Mykal S. Ryan, Special Administrator for Estate of John James Ryan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy M. HYDEN, a California resident and as Trustee of the John and Christy Ryan Family Trust; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-31
Citations: 584 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 13-55041
Parties: ESTATE OF John James RYAN, Plaintiff, and Mykal S. Ryan, Special Administrator for Estate of John James Ryan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy M. HYDEN, a California resident and as Trustee of the John and Christy Ryan Family Trust; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
ESTATE OF John James RYAN, Plaintiff, and Mykal S. Ryan, Special Administrator for Estate of John James Ryan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy M. HYDEN, a California resident and as Trustee of the John and Christy Ryan Family Trust; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-55041.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 31, 2014.
Mykal S. Ryan, San Diego, CA, pro se.
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
Mykal S. Ryan, Special Administrator for the Estate of John James Ryan, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations in connection with the enforcement of a default judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a pre-filing order. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this action because Ryan failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against him, which required him to obtain court approval before filing an action involving these defendants and issues. See id.
We reject Ryan's contentions of alleged judicial bias and prejudice.
We deny Ryan's outstanding requests.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.