United States v. 2020-11-16 | 18-56306 | ANTHONY OLIVER V. JAMIE LUNER | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY OLIVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMIE MICHELLE LUNER; DOES, 1-10,
inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56306

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02562-VAP-
AFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Oliver appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
declaring him a vexatious litigant and requiring pre-filing review. 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).

*
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

NOV 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-56306
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Oliver a vexatious
litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the
requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See id. at 1062
(setting forth requirements for pre-filing review orders).
To the extent Oliver challenges the underlying judgment dismissing his
action, we do not consider his contentions because they are outside the scope of
this appeal.
We reject as without merit Oliver’s contentions that the district court later
amended the vexatious litigant order to add a bond requirement, that the district
court lacked authority to enter the vexatious litigant order sua sponte, and that
Oliver was entitled to a hearing.
AFFIRMED.