United States of America v. DANNY FABRICANT, AKA Daniel Joseph Fabricant, AKA Danny Joseph Fabricant

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANNY FABRICANT, AKA Daniel
Joseph Fabricant, AKA Danny Joseph
Fabricant,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 19-50130
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-01257-RSWL-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to vacate the order declaring him a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-
filing restriction on him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-50130
affirm.
The district court treated Fabricant’s motion as arising under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which Fabricant does not challenge on appeal. We
review the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(5) motion for abuse of discretion.
See SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 2001). Fabricant argues that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his motion because the vexatious
litigant/pre-filing order is a “scarlet letter” that is no longer warranted, prejudices
him in civil litigation, and prevents him from challenging his conviction and
sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion because Fabricant has not
demonstrated any significant change in either factual conditions or the law, nor has
he demonstrated that any changed circumstances have made his compliance with
the order substantially more onerous, unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles,
detrimental to the public interest, or legally impermissible. See id. at 942
(discussing conditions under which a district court may modify a court order under
Rule 60(b)(5)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --