John Demos, Jr. v. William Smith ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr., No. 20-35421
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05071-TOR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM J. SMITH, Medical Director,
Washington State Penitentiary; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner John Robert Demos, Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal pursuant to a contempt order. 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).
Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demos’s action
because Demos’s action was within the scope of the district court’s contempt
order. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for East. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161
(9th Cir. 1991) (confirming that the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington
have entered final prefiling orders against Demos restricting Demos’s permission
to file certain actions); Demos v. McNichols, No. 91-CV-00027-LRS (E.D. Wash.
Aug. 26, 1991) (issuing contempt order barring Demos from initiating actions in
the Eastern District of Washington); see also In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d at 1091(litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different venue).
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 not presented to the district court because
they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870,
874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35421