Court Opinion

ID: 9365642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-24 18:01:28.927019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:46.663422
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL S. IOANE,                                No. 21-16104

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 5:99-cv-21119-SW

and
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
SHELLY J. IOANE; PARADISE
SOLUTIONS,

                Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Michael S. Ioane appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under a prefiling review order, Ioane’s motion to reopen his bankruptcy case to file

a new adversary proceeding challenging a nonjudicial foreclosure of real property.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion the application of a prefiling review order. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d

1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ioane leave to file

the motion to reopen to file a new adversary proceeding because the filing was

within the scope of the district court’s prefiling review order. See Weissman v.

Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the

inherent power to file restrictive pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants with

abusive and lengthy histories of litigation. . . . Such pre-filing orders may enjoin

the litigant from filing further actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain

requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that

support the merits of the case.”). A prior panel of this court affirmed the district

court’s prefiling review order in No. 00-16145, and we will not reconsider that

decision. See Martinson v. Michael (In re Michael), 163 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir.

1998) (explaining that, under the law of the case, a panel generally will not

reconsider issues decided by another panel in a prior appeal in the same case).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     21-16104