Case Name: Antolin Andrew MARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JENNINGS, Assistant Field Office Director of ICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-08
Citations: 357 F. App'x 128
Docket Number: No. 08-35837
Parties: Antolin Andrew MARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JENNINGS, Assistant Field Office Director of ICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
Antolin Andrew MARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JENNINGS, Assistant Field Office Director of ICE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-35837.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
Antolin Andrew Marks, Kent, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antolin Andrew Marks, an immigration detainee, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing, pursuant to a pre-filing review order, his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynas ty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (entry of a pre-filing order against a vexatious litigant); In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing a pre-filing review order that had been issued after giving Marks 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 Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (explaining four factors district courts must examine before entering pre-filing review orders).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Marks's action because he failed to comply with the pre-filing review order, which required him to submit an affidavit, signed under the penalty of perjury, verifying that he had not previously litigated any issues raised in his proposed complaint.
Marks's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.