22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T44a,MEMORANDUM Morris S. and Shawn R. Maxwell appeal pro se from the district court’s order declaring them vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring the Maxwells vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing order against them after providing them with notice and an opportunity to' be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making substantive findings regarding their frivolous litigation history, and tailoring the restriction narrowly. See id. at 1057, 1058-61 (discussing factors to consider before imposing pre-filing restrictions). We reject as meritless the Maxwells’ contentions that they were denied due pro cess and equal protection due to a lack of a full and fair hearing on their claims. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T47c,

MEMORANDUM

Morris S. and Shawn R. Maxwell appeal pro se from the district court’s order declaring them vexatious litigants and imposing pre-filing restrictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring the Maxwells vexatious litigants and entering a pre-filing order against them after providing them with notice and an opportunity to' be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making substantive findings regarding their frivolous litigation history, and tailoring the restriction narrowly. See id. at 1057, 1058-61 (discussing factors to consider before imposing pre-filing restrictions).

We reject as meritless the Maxwells’ contentions that they were denied due pro cess and equal protection due to a lack of a full and fair hearing on their claims.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.