BENJAMIN WOODHOUSE, A Citizen of the United States, Resident of the U.S. Virgin Islands v. United States Government;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN WOODHOUSE, A Citizen of
the United States, Resident of the U.S. Virgin
Islands,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55045
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-06372-SB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Woodhouse appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action under prefiling vexatious litigant orders. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re
* 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
MAY 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55045
Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Woodhouse’s
action because his complaint was within the scope of the district court’s prefiling
vexatious litigant orders and Woodhouse failed to comply with the prefiling
requirements. 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 . . ..” (citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Woodhouse’s
requests for entry of default because Woodhouse’s requests were frivolous. See
Speiser, Krause & Madole P.C. v. Ortiz, 271 F.3d 884, 886 (9th Cir. 2001)
(standard of review).
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).
Woodhouse’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 32) is denied.
All pending requests in the briefing are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --