Peyton v. Allison

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-2102
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND E. PEYTON, No. 24-2102 D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00760-JLT Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

KATHLEEN ALLISON; ROB BONTA; PETER ALDANA; BRIAN CATES; RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Chapter 7 debtor Raymond E. Peyton, who is incarcerated in California,

appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s

* 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). order dismissing Peyton’s adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo

the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and for clear error its findings of fact.

Decker v. Tramiel (In re JTS Corp.), 617 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We

affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Petyon’s adversary proceeding for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction is

confined to cases under the Bankruptcy Code and proceedings “arising under [the

Bankruptcy Code] or arising in or related to” the bankruptcy case. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 157(a)(1); Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles (In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074, 1084,

1086 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that “federal bankruptcy courts should

not invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings” and the “federal remedy for

state court convictions obtained in violation of Constitution or statute” is “a writ of

habeas corpus” (citations omitted)).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2102