MARC ENDSLEY V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 21-55202 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARC ANTHONY LOWELL ENDSLEY, AKA Marc Endsley, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-55202 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03091-UA-SS Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* and 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 prefiling 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.