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:T503,MEMORANDUM Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court’s pre-filing order entered against a vexatious litigant. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. In her opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for filing the appeal in violation of the district court’s pre-filing order. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge, to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider her arguments challenging bankruptcy court orders. All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T53a,

MEMORANDUM

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court’s pre-filing order entered against a vexatious litigant. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

In her opening brief, Hunt fails to address how the district court erred by dismissing her bankruptcy appeal for filing the appeal in violation of the district court’s pre-filing order. As a result, Hunt has waived her challenge, to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Hunt’s bankruptcy appeal, we do not consider her arguments challenging bankruptcy court orders.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.