DONALD TANGWALL V. LARRY COMPTON, No. 22-35066 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 26 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD A. TANGWALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-35066 D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00007-SLG v. MEMORANDUM* LARRY D. COMPTON, Bankruptcy Trustee; CABOT CHRISTIANSON, Attorney, Attorney for Larry Compton; GARY A. SPRAKER, Bankruptcy Judge; FRED CORBIT, Bankruptcy Judge; KAY HILL, Anchorage Trustee Office; MARK WEBER, United States Trustee Office, Seattle, Washington, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Tangwall filed his notice of appeal and motion to proceed in forma pauperis * 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). (“IFP”) in docket No. 19-80175. This court reviewed Tangwall’s notice of appeal and accompanying documents and allowed this appeal to proceed. Tangwall’s motion to proceed IFP in this appeal is granted. Donald A. Tangwall appeals pro se from the district court’s supplemental order declaring him a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Tangwall a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against him because all of the requirements for entering a pre-filing review order were met. See id. All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-35066

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.