Stasz v. Gonzalez

520 F. App'x 543

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2013
• Docket: 11-60048
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Shanel Ann Stasz appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to file a timely opening brief. 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 in dismissing Stasz’s appeal for failure to file a timely opening brief after it granted Stasz several extensions of time and warned her that failure to file an opening brief by May 18, 2011 would result in dismissal of the appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8001(a) (an appellant’s failure to take steps required to prosecute an appeal may be grounds for dismissal of the appeal); Greco v. Stubenberg, 859 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1988) (explaining that courts ordinarily should consider alternative sanctions as well as the fault of the person failing to prosecute); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case are not excused from compliance with procedural rules).

The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Stasz’s motion for reconsideration because Stasz failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (listing grounds for relief from judgment); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9024 (applying Fed. R.Civ.P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions); Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir.1989) (per cu-riam) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.