Michael S. Ioane v. County of Santa Clara;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL S. IOANE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
SHELLY J. IOANE; PARADISE
SOLUTIONS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16104
D.C. No. 5:99-cv-21119-SW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael S. Ioane appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying,
* 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
JAN 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-16104
under a prefiling review order, Ioane’s motion to reopen his bankruptcy case to file
a new adversary proceeding challenging a nonjudicial foreclosure of real property.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion the application of a prefiling review order. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d
1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ioane leave to file
the motion to reopen to file a new adversary proceeding because the filing was
within the scope of the district court’s prefiling review order. 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 unless he or she first meets certain
requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that
support the merits of the case.”). A prior panel of this court affirmed the district
court’s prefiling review order in No. 00-16145, and we will not reconsider that
decision. See Martinson v. Michael (In re Michael), 163 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir.
1998) (explaining that, under the law of the case, a panel generally will not
reconsider issues decided by another panel in a prior appeal in the same case).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --