Kuang-Bao Ou-Young v. Kamala Harris ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUL 13 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KUANG-BAO OU-YOUNG, No. 21-15001
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-09097-VKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KAMALA D. HARRIS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: WATFORD, BENNETT, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Kuang-Bao Ou-Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
application of a pre-filing order. Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.
*
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).
1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Ou-Young’s
complaint and dismissing his action, because the claims alleged were within the
scope of the district court’s pre-filing restrictions imposed on him as a vexatious
litigant. See West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that
an order refusing to authorize the filing of a complaint was a “proper exercise of
the district court’s authority to effectuate compliance with its earlier order”).
We reject as without merit Ou-Young’s contentions that the dismissal of his
action was in violation of his constitutional rights or premature, or that the district
court “falsified dismissal.”
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).
We do not consider Ou-Young’s renewed motion for summary reversal
(Docket Entry No. 28). In Docket Entry No. 25, this court denied Ou-Young’s
renewed motions for summary reversal and ordered that no motions for
reconsideration, clarification, or modification of the denial shall be filed or
entertained.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15001