Case: 18-10172 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10172
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 8:17-cv-01738-JDW; 8:16-bkc-03519-CPM
In Re: NAUSSERA NOAH ZADEH,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
NAUSSERA NOAH ZADEH,
a.k.a. Naussera Taati Zadeh,
d.b.a. Noah’s Great Little Farm,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JON WAAGE,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 6, 2019)
Case: 18-10172 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Naussera Zadeh, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order sua
sponte dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal of the bankruptcy court’s
order closing his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. On appeal, he argues that the
bankruptcy court violated his due process rights by failing to void his transfer of
his homestead property as fraudulent and by failing to enforce an automatic stay
against his creditors, who, he alleges, conspired to purchase his homestead
property without his knowledge or permission.
I.
We sit as a second court of review in the bankruptcy context, examining
independently the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court and
employing the same standards of review as the district court. Finova Capital Corp.
v. Larson Pharmacy, Inc. (In re Optical Techs., Inc.),
425 F.3d 1294, 1299-300
(11th Cir. 2005). We review the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error
and the bankruptcy court’s and district court’s legal conclusions de novo.
Id. at
1300. However, we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s order
dismissing a bankruptcy appeal on procedural grounds. See Pyramid Mobile
Homes, Inc. v. Speake (In re Pyramid Mobile Homes Inc.),
531 F.2d 743, 746 (5th
Cir. 1976) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal under
2
Case: 18-10172 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 Page: 3 of 4
former Bankruptcy Rule 801, which provided that an appellant’s failure to take
steps beyond filing a notice of appeal may be grounds for dismissing the appeal).1
An abuse of discretion occurs where a bankruptcy court applies the wrong
principle of law or makes clearly erroneous findings of fact. Kulakowski v. Walton
(In re Kulakowski),
735 F.3d 1296, 1299 (11th Cir. 2013).
In bankruptcy appeals to the district court, the appellant must file a brief
within 30 days after the docketing of notice that the record has been transmitted,
unless the district court specifies different time limits. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a).
If the appellant fails to timely file a brief, the district court may sua sponte dismiss
the appeal after notice. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4). Generally, dismissal upon
disregard of an order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned, is not an
abuse of discretion. Moon v. Newsome,
863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). In the
bankruptcy context, we have explained that filing briefs, unlike filing a notice of
appeal, is not a jurisdictional prerequisite and, therefore, a showing of bad faith,
negligence, or indifference is necessary in determining whether dismissal is
appropriate for failure to file a brief. Brake v. Tavormina (In re Beverly Mfg.
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981)(en banc), this Court
adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
3
Case: 18-10172 Date Filed: 06/06/2019 Page: 4 of 4
Corp.),
778 F.2d 666, 667 (11th Cir. 1985) (interpreting former Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8009(a)(1), requiring timely filing of briefs).
While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on
appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Pro se litigants are required to conform to procedural
rules. Albra v. Advan, Inc.,
490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007).
Here, Zadeh has abandoned any argument that the district court abused its
discretion by sua sponte dismissing his appeal for failure to meaningfully
prosecute and failure to follow Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018, as his brief does not
address the district court’s order and solely addresses purported violations
committed by the bankruptcy court. Because Zadeh has not properly raised any
arguments demonstrating that the district court erred, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4
