
    IN RE: Lawrence FRUMUSA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    No. 16-3095
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    September 22, 2017
    FOR APPELLANT: Lawrence Frumu-sa, pro se, Walworth, New York.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk is respectfully directed to amend the caption as indicated.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Lawrence Frumusa, proceeding pro se, appeals from an order denying leave to appeal a bankruptcy court’s final decree. By a 2010 order, Frumusa was enjoined from filing in the District Court for the Western District of New York without first obtaining the court’s authorization. The district court denied leave, finding that Frumusa had not sought its prior approval before filing and that the proposed appeal would be frivolous. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Denial of leave to file, pursuant to a sanction, is analogous to failure to obey a district court order. See Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1998). Furthermore, we have previously approved a district court’s application of a leave-to-file sanction in the context of an appeal from the bankruptcy court. See In re Martin-Trigona, 592 F.Supp. 1566, 1571 (D. Conn. 1984) (enjoining the plaintiff from filing an appeal from the bankruptcy court without first seeking leave to file from the district court), aff'd, 763 F.2d 140, 141 (2d Cir. 1985). The district court’s 2010 order applied to Frumusa’s proposed appeal from the bankruptcy court’s final decree. Fru-musa argues that the order bars only “new actions.” But the order directs the Clerk of Court for the Western District of New York “not to accept any proposed filings from Lawrence Fumusa [sic], unless the Court authorizes such by written order.” Frumusa’s proposed appeal, moreover, was consistent with his prior history of vexatious litigation in the Western District of New York.

We have considered all of Frumusa’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.  