Lundahl v. Lewis ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 28 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
HOLLI LUNDAHL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 04-4038
(BAP. No. UT-04-003)
HONORABLE LESLIE LEWIS; (BAP)
ALEXANDRIA DOCTORMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________
HOLLI LUNDAHL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 04-4039
(BAP. No. UT-04-004)
CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION; (BAP)
SOURCE ONE MORTGAGE
SERVICE; EMPIRE OF AMERICA
REALTY; RAY M. HARDING, JR.;
MIKE TRONIER; BRENT JOHNSON;
LOUIS B. TERVORT; HOLLAND &
HART LLP,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
(continued...)
Before SEYMOUR , KELLY , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate records, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases
are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Ms. Holli Lundahl, appearing pro se in these related matters, appeals from
orders of the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit
(BAP) dismissing her bankruptcy appeals. In separate orders dated February 3,
2004, the BAP held Ms. Lundahl failed to submit in a timely fashion her
Statement of Interested Parties, Designation of Record, and Statement of Issues
for the underlying matters. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006; 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8006-
1(b). Accordingly, it dismissed the appeals for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 8001(a); 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8018-4(b). Ms. Lundahl now maintains
the BAP’s orders were void, and that the underlying matters should be before the
district court. Because we agree with the BAP’s disposition, and have determined
these matters are frivolous, they will be dismissed.
*
(...continued)
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
We review the BAP’s dismissal orders under an abuse of discretion
standard. Nielsen v. Price , 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994)
(finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing pro se bankruptcy appeal for failure
to designate record and failure to file statement of issues and to submit timely
brief). Doing so, we hold the court’s actions were proper. The record makes
clear Ms. Lundahl was provided warning regarding the possibility of dismissal. It
is likewise clear she did not provide the requested materials. She does not argue
to the contrary. She maintains only that the BAP’s orders were void, and that the
court had no jurisdiction to hear her appeals. Ms. Lundahl’s arguments are
unavailing. Indeed, as noted, they are frivolous.
Because we deem these matters frivolous, the motions which Ms. Lundahl
filed seeking to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. Likewise, the motion to
strike and the motion for sanctions filed in appeal number 04-4039 are denied.
The request for permission to file a reply brief and supplemental appendix
submitted in number 04-4039 is granted. These appeals are DISMISSED. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Entered for the Court
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-3-