Ronald Van Hook v. State of Idaho

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2023
• Docket: 23-35457
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD VAN HOOK, No. 23-35457

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00259-JCC

v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF IDAHO; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Van Hook appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing sua sponte, pursuant to a vexatious litigant pre-filing order, his action

alleging various federal law claims arising out of prior federal and state court

proceedings. Van Hook also challenges the underlying pre-filing order, filed on

* 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). Van Hook’s request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. January 25, 2023 and amended on June 21, 2023, in District Court Case No. 1:22-

cv-00347-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 pre-filing review order); In re Fillbach, 223

F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for failure to comply with a pre-

filing order). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Van Hook a

vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because the

district court provided Van Hook notice and an opportunity to oppose the order and

amended order, compiled an adequate record for appellate review, made

substantive findings of frivolousness or harassment, and tailored the amended

order narrowly. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (setting forth

requirements for pre-filing review orders).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Van Hook’s

proposed complaint because the complaint was within the scope of the district

court’s pre-filing review order and Van Hook failed to comply with the pre-filing

requirements. 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

2 23-35457 unless he or she first meets certain requirements . . . .” (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-35457