In Re: Bruce Chadbourne v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2023
• Docket: 20-60054
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: BRUCE CHADBOURNE, No. 20-60054

Debtor, BAP No. 19-1218

------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* BRUCE CHADBOURNE,

Appellant,

v.

WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for MFRA Trust 2014-2,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Gan, Faris, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Bruce Chadbourne appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

(“BAP”) order dismissing Chadbourne’s appeal for failure to provide a transcript

of the bankruptcy court’s stay relief hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re

Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chadbourne’s appeal for

failure to file a transcript of the stay relief hearing because the BAP determined

that the transcript was necessary to perform an informed review and provided

Chadbourne multiple extensions of time and warnings that failure to file a

transcript would result in dismissal of the appeal. See id. at 1189-91; see also 9th

Cir. Bankr. App. Panel R. 8009-1 (“The excerpts of record shall include the

transcripts necessary for adequate review in light of the standard of review to be

applied to the issues before the Panel.”); Clinton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co.

(In re Clinton), 449 B.R. 79, 83 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (pro se litigants in bankruptcy

proceedings are not excused from compliance with procedural rules).

Because we affirm the BAP’s order dismissing the appeal, we do not

consider Chadbourne’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s decisions. See In re

Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190.

Chadbourne’s motion for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief

2 20-60054 and a reply brief (Docket Entry No. 36) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 20-60054