Sidney Scarlett v. Devin Derham-Burk

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 3, 2018

Docket17-15799

StatusUnpublished

This text of Sidney Scarlett v. Devin Derham-Burk (Sidney Scarlett v. Devin Derham-Burk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sidney Scarlett v. Devin Derham-Burk, (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, No. 17-15799 ______________________________ D.C. No. 5:16-cv-05371-LHK SIDNEY T. SCARLETT,

Appellant, MEMORANDUM*

v.

DEVIN DERHAM-BURK, Chapter 13 trustee,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

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

* 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). 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.

2 17-15799

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, No. 17-15799 ______________________________ D.C. No. 5:16-cv-05371-LHK SIDNEY T. SCARLETT,

Appellant, MEMORANDUM*

v.

DEVIN DERHAM-BURK, Chapter 13 trustee,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

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

* 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). 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.

2 17-15799

Related

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc.

624 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

In Re William EISEN, Debtor. Richard MONEYMAKER, Appellant, v. Melvyn J. CoBEN, Appellee

31 F.3d 1447 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sidney Scarlett v. Devin Derham-Burk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidney-scarlett-v-devin-derham-burk-ca9-2018.