MEMORANDUM **
Washington state prisoner John Robert Demos, Jr. appeals pro se from the district courts order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district courts dismissal pursuant to a contempt order. In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demoss action because Demoss action was within the scope of the district courts contempt order. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for East. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (confirming that the Eastern and Western Districts of Washington have entered final prefiling orders against Demos restricting Demoss permission to file certain actions); Demos v. McNichols, No. 91-CV-00027-LRS (E.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 1991) (issuing contempt order barring Demos from initiating actions in the Eastern District of Washington); see also In Re Fillbach, 223 F.3d at 1091 (litigant may not avoid a vexatious litigant order by filing suit in a different venue).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court because they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.