Marc Endsley v. State of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARC ANTHONY LOWELL ENDSLEY, No. 21-55202
AKA Marc Endsley,
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03091-UA-SS
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and MEMORANDUM*
DARYL CARRUTHERS; TIMOTHY
McWHORTER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Marc Anthony Lowell Endsley appeals pro se from the district court’s order
rejecting his habeas petition on the basis of a vexatious litigant order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s application of a vexatious litigant pre-filing order. Moy v. United
States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Endsley’s habeas
petition because the proposed filing was within the scope of the district court’s pre-
filing order and Endsley failed to comply with the order. See West v. Procunier,
452 F.2d 645, 646 (9th Cir. 1971) (concluding that an order refusing to authorize
filing of complaint was a “proper exercise of the district court’s authority to
effectuate compliance with its earlier order”).
To the extent that Endsley now seeks to challenge the scope of the pre-filing
order, that issue has been previously litigated and decided. See Rebel Oil Co., Inc.
v. Atl. Richfield Co., 146 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Under the doctrine of
‘law of the case,’ a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that
has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical
case.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55202