In re Jonathan Wilson Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Jonathan Wilson Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (47 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 24-3460 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1090 District court discretion to dismiss for noncompliance with pre-filing order34 citing casesaffirming dismissal of a petition filed in district court to try to circumvent the bankruptcy court’s vexatious litigant order8 citing courts put it this way · 32 listed here
  • Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 24-3460 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2025).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 24-2166 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2025).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Sui v. Marshack, No. 24-2425 (9th Cir. July 22, 2025).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • In re Artem Koshkalda v. E. Schoenmann, No. 23-60031 (9th Cir. Dec. 24, 2024).unpublished
    (setting forth standard of review)
  • Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. v. Janice Brewer, No. 23-16129 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2024).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Yan Sui v. Richard Marshack, No. 23-55391 (9th Cir. July 23, 2024).unpublished
    App. P. 34(a)(2). 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Roland Ma, No. 23-35500 (9th Cir. June 21, 2024).unpublished
    (dismissal for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order)
  • Ronald Van Hook v. State of Idaho, No. 23-35457 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2023).unpublished
    (dismissal for failure to comply with a pre- filing order)
  • Jeremiah Balik v. Cnty. of Ventura, No. 22-15831 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Ebenezer Howe, IV v. John Roberts, Jr., No. 22-35349 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity, Meek v. Cnty. of Riverside, 183 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1999), and for an abuse of discretion its dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, In re…
Show 22 more citing cases
  • Michael Ioane v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, No. 21-16104 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2023).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Michael Bruzzone v. Intel Corp., No. 22-15157 (9th Cir. July 6, 2022).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Rejeanne Bernier v. Ricardo Lara, 851 F. App'x 787 (9th Cir. 2021).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • John Demos, Jr. v. Donald Holbrook, 848 F. App'x 779 (9th Cir. 2021).unpublished
    In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000); O’Laughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990).
  • Frank Konarski v. City of Tucson, No. 16-16789 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018).unpublished
    (a district court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant pre-filing order)
  • Robert Hunt v. Peter Anderson, 693 F. App'x 586 (9th Cir. 2017).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Kevin Perry v. San Diego Cnty., 670 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2016).unpublished
    We review for an abuse of discretion both the district court’s denial of leave to file a complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant order, In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000), and the district court’s denial of a Rule 60…
  • Roy Day v. William Loucks, 636 F. App'x 830 (3d Cir. 2016).unpublished
    We review an order dismissing a case for failing to comply with a court order for abuse of discretion, see Emerson v. Thiel Coll, 296 F.3d 184 , 190 (3d Cir.2002); In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2000), and we grant “great def…
  • Mykal Ryan v. Mary Morgan, 585 F. App'x 350 (9th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2000).
  • Mykal S. Ryan v. Timothy Hyden, 584 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2014).unpublished 2 cites
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2000).
  • Krishna Reddy v. Webmedx, Inc., 584 F. App'x 403 (9th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    (affirming dismissal of a petition filed in district court to try to circumvent the bankruptcy court’s vexatious litigant order)
  • Waters v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 584 F. App'x 417 (9th Cir. 2014).unpublished 2 cites
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000).
  • Helen Ryan v. Timothy Hyden, 582 F. App'x 699 (9th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2000).
  • Clarence Haywood v. Stephen Hillman, 560 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2014).unpublished
    (affirming the dismissal of a petition filed in the district court to try to circumvent the bankruptcy court’s vexatious litigant order)
  • Fred Knox v. Patrick Donahue, 540 F. App'x 811 (9th Cir. 2013).unpublished 2 cites
    We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a pre-filing review order, In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000), and review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Wood v. City of San D…
  • Mendez-Valenzuela v. State of Arizona, 436 F. App'x 827 (9th Cir. 2011).unpublished
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000).
  • Clarence Haywood v. Stephen Hillman, 398 F. App'x 296 (9th Cir. 2010).unpublished
    (affirming dismissal of a bankruptcy petition filed to circumvent a vexatious litigant order entered in bankruptcy court)
  • Antolin Andrews v. Jennings, 357 F. App'x 128 (9th Cir. 2009).unpublished
    (dismissal for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order)
  • Kersh v. Cook, 332 F. App'x 420 (9th Cir. 2009).unpublished 4 cites
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir.2000).
  • Jeanette Enrichi-roppe v. Domitila v. Sanchez, No. 2 CA-SA 2026-0048 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 30, 2026).published
    See In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000); Madison v. Groseth, 230 Ariz. 8, ¶ 16 (App. 2012).
  • Andrew Shalaby v. Newell Brands, Inc., No. 22-55812 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024).unpublished
    (standard of review)
  • Donald Tangwall v. Larry Compton, No. 19-35370 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2019).unpublished
    (a district court has discretion to dismiss an action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant pre-filing order)
At page 1091 Dismissal of filings attempting to circumvent vexatious litigant orders5 citing casesholding that a litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different court1 citing court put it this way
  • Emrit v. Cobb Gonzalez Law Finn of Jacksonville, No. 8:25-cv-00999 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2025).
    (holding that a litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different court)
  • Jeremiah Balik v. Cnty. of Ventura, No. 22-15831 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2023).unpublished 2 cites
    In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Raiser v. Gelmis, No. 1:22-cv-00062 (D. Mont. Jan. 6, 2023).
    (upholding a district court’s dismissal of a petition that was filed in an attempt to circumvent a vexatious litigant order entered by a bankruptcy court.)
  • John Demos, Jr. v. William Smith, No. 20-35421 (9th Cir. May 27, 2021).unpublished 2 cites
    Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000).
  • Weik v. Asby, No. 9:24-cv-00106 (D. Mont. Oct. 30, 2024).
    See, In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000); Demos v. Smith, 848 Fed. Appx. 785 (May 27, 2021) (unpublished) (citing Fillbach for this proposition).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Jonathan Wilson FILLBACH. Appellant
99-15958.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 18, 2000.
Published opinion
223 F.3d 1089
2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6950
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 20918
2000 WL 1166322
Jonathan W. Fillbach, pro per, Petalu-ma, California, appellant.
Sneed, Kleinfeld, Tashima.
Cited by 37 opinions  |  Published
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:

This case is about whether a district court may dismiss a petition filed by a litigant in an effort to circumvent a vexatious litigant order entered against him in bankruptcy court.

I FACTS

Between December 1997 and August 1998, Fillbach filed for bankruptcy three times. His petition was dismissed each time for failing to comply with virtually all the required forms and orders of the bankruptcy court. During his third ease, Fill-bach filed numerous, meritless motions for sanctions against his creditors. On September 11, 1998, Fillbach filed his fourth bankruptcy petition in nine months. Again, he failed to file the required schedules and a plan of reorganization. Instead, he filed 26 adversary proceedings objecting to non-scheduled claims and more mer-itless motions for sanctions against his creditors. By January 7, 1999, the bankruptcy judge had seen enough. After issuing an order to show cause and giving Fillbach an opportunity to be heard, the bankruptcy judge entered a vexatious litigant order against Fillbach that enjoined him from “filling] a bankruptcy petition under any chapter in this district before January 1, 2000.”

Fillbach did not appeal the order entered against him by the bankruptcy court. Instead, on April 12, 1999, he filed yet another bankruptcy petition, this time in district court. The district court promptly dismissed the action, noting that “Fillbach has been barred by the Bankruptcy Court from any future filings based on his abuse of filings in the past.” The district judge wrote that “any future attempt to circumvent the order of the Bankruptcy Court barring future filings by him may result in sanctions.” Fillbach appeals the district court’s dismissal.

II. ANALYSIS

We review a dismissal for failure to comply with a court’s order for abuse of discretion [2] and affirm. The question raised by this case is whether a district[*1091] court can dismiss a petition that was filed in an attempt to circumvent a vexatious litigant order entered by a bankruptcy court. It can.

We have no reported cases in which a vexatious litigant filed in district court to avoid a bankruptcy court order. In the somewhat analogous circumstance of filing in one district court to avoid a vexatious litigant order in another, it is clear that a district court has authority to dismiss for that reason in appropriate circumstances. [3]

The case at bar differs from the cases cited in that Fillbach failed to comply with the order of an Article I court, rather than a co-equal Article III court. But that difference is illusory in that the same “considerations of comity, consistency of treatment, and orderly administration of justice” [4] support a dismissal here. While the district court did have jurisdiction over the petition under the applicable statute, [5] and the bankruptcy court could not bar the district court from entertaining a properly filed case, the fact that the district court was not bound by the order does not mean that it could not choose, in its discretion, to dismiss because the filing was an attempt to evade the order.

AFFIRMED.

2

. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir.1992). If we were to regard the dismissal as one pursuant to the court's "inherent power," the same standard would apply. Cf. Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 398 (9th Cir.1998) (reviewing a dismissal for "judge-shopping" made pursuant to the inherent powers of the court for abuse of discretion).

3

. Martin-Trigona v. Shaw, 986 F.2d 1384 (11th Cir.1993); Martin-Trigona v. United States, 779 F.2d 72 (D.C.Cir.1985).

4

. Martin-Trigona, 779 F.2d at 73.

5

. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) (1994).