Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVAN RENE MOORE, No. 24-2166 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04828-ODW-GJS Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; ASSET RELIANCE, INC.; CRAIG HANSEN; EDWARD D. TESTO; GEORGE BARBOUR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment * 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). Moore’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. order rejecting his complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant pre-filing review order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Moore’s complaint because the proposed filing was within the scope of the district court’s pre-filing order, and Moore did not comply with the order’s requirements. See West v. Procunier, 452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize the filing of a complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to effectuate compliance with its earlier order”). A prior panel of this court affirmed the district court’s imposition of the pre- filing review order, and we will not reconsider that decision. See Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 749 F. App’x 624, 625 (9th Cir. 2019); see also S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court . . . .”). Moore’s motion (Docket Entry No. 5) for judicial notice is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 24-2166