Jeremiah William Balik v. City of Torrance;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMIAH WILLIAM BALIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF TORRANCE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-15324
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02174-RFB-EJY
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Jeremiah William Balik appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging various constitutional violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.
* 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
MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15324
2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Balik’s action was proper because Balik’s claims are too
frivolous and unsubstantial to invoke subject matter jurisdiction. See Hagans v.
Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (“Over the years this Court has repeatedly held
that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their
jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of
merit . . . .”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A
paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal subject matter
jurisdiction[.]”), abrogated on other grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319
(1989).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Balik 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 Ringgold-
Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting
forth requirements for a pre-filing review order).
We reject as unpersuasive Balik’s contentions that the district court erred in
denying his pending motions as moot, including his motions to enter default and
default judgment, that the district court erred in denying his application to proceed
in forma pauperis, and that Balik was entitled to a hearing before the district court

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15324
declared him a vexatious litigant.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not
consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States
v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --