Roland Ma

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: ROLAND MA, No. 23-35500 ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:21-mc-00015-JCC ROLAND MA,

Petitioner-Appellant. MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2024**

Before: CANBY, PAEZ, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Roland Ma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying him leave

to file a complaint under a vexatious litigant order. Ma also challenges the

underlying vexatious litigant order, filed on February 9, 2021, in District Court

case no. 2:19-cv-01112-JCC. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review for an abuse of discretion. Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles,

761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (imposition of a vexatious litigant order); In

* 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). 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 in declaring Ma a vexatious

litigant and entering a pre-filing order against him because the district court

provided Ma with notice and an opportunity to be heard, and Ma does not contest

that the remaining requirements were met. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at

1062 (setting forth requirements the district court must consider before imposing

pre-filing restrictions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ma’s motion for

leave to file a complaint because Ma failed to comply with the requirements of the

vexatious litigant order entered against him. 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”).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35500