Court Opinion

ID: 9891189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 19:00:35.272166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:39.007598
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEREMIAH WILLIAM BALIK,                         No. 22-15831

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00679-CDS-VCF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
COUNTY OF VENTURA; 99TH
SECURITY FORCES NELLIS AFB; BMO
HARRIS BANK, N.A.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                    Cristina D. Silva, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jeremiah William Balik appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing under a vexatious litigant pre-filing order his action alleging federal and

state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

      *
             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).
abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We

affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Balik’s action

because Balik failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against

him. See id. at 1091 (explaining that a district court may dismiss an action where a

litigant attempts to avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different

court).

      To the extent that Balik seeks to challenge the underlying vexatious litigant

order, we do not consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of this

appeal.

      We reject as meritless Balik’s contention that he was entitled to a default

judgment.

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      County of Ventura’s motion to submit the case on the briefs (Docket Entry

No. 20) is granted. All other pending requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     22-15831