DONALD A. TANGWALL, Individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Toni 1 Trust v. Larry D. Compton

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD A. TANGWALL, Individually
and in his capacity as Trustee of the Toni 1
Trust,
Appellant,
v.
LARRY D. COMPTON,
Appellee.
No. 19-35370
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00031-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Donald A. Tangwall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
affirming the bankruptcy court’s order rejecting his proposed filing pursuant to a
vexatious litigant order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We
* 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).
FILED
DEC 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
review de novo a district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court and
apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. Motor Vehicle
Cas. 5 Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.), 677 F.3d 869,
879 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Tangwall’s
proposed filing because the filing was within the scope of the vexatious litigant
order and Tangwall failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the
vexatious litigant order. See In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000) (a
district court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a
vexatious litigant pre-filing order).
To the extent that Tangwall seeks to challenge the underlying vexatious
litigant order or the merits of the underlying bankruptcy proceedings, we do not
consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of this appeal.
Tangwall’s request to combine cases and his motion to consolidate appeals
are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --