From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scarlett v. Derham-Burk (In re Scarlett)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 3, 2018
No. 17-15799 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-15799

12-03-2018

In re: SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, Appellant, v. DEVIN DERHAM-BURK, Chapter 13 trustee, Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-05371-LHK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

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

Sidney T. Scarlett appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of extension of time); Moneymaker v. CoBEN (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scarlett a further extension of time and dismissing Scarlett's bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute after it granted him two extensions of time to file the opening brief and warned that failure to file an opening brief by the extended due date would result in dismissal of his appeal. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451-56 (discussing factors for district court to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scarlett's motion for reconsideration because Scarlett failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Scarlett v. Derham-Burk (In re Scarlett)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 3, 2018
No. 17-15799 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)
Case details for

Scarlett v. Derham-Burk (In re Scarlett)

Case Details

Full title:In re: SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, Appellant, v. DEVIN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 3, 2018

Citations

No. 17-15799 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2018)

Citing Cases

Lee v. Painter

The court therefore finds that this action should be dismissed due to Appellant's failure to prosecute. See…