Jeffrey Thomas v. Albany Investment Properties ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEFFREY GRAY THOMAS, No. 19-56461
Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05804-JGB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ALBANY INVESTMENT PROPERTIES,
LLC,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Gray Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to file required documents. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Thomas’s appeal
for failure to file all of the documents required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 8009, after providing additional time and multiple warnings that failure
to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (an appellant’s
failure to take steps to prosecute a bankruptcy appeal may be grounds for
dismissal); Greco v. Stubenberg, 859 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1988) (court must
show it had sufficiently considered and exhausted alternatives to dismissal).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Thomas’s motion
to reopen the appeal because Thomas failed to establish grounds for such relief.
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2); United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d
1208, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review).
We reject as without merit Thomas’s contention that the district court should
have construed his motion to reopen as a motion for reconsideration under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a) (Part VIII rules
govern procedure in a United States district court on appeal from an order of a
bankruptcy court).
Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal, we do not
consider Thomas’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s order disallowing his
claims.
2 19-56461
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 19-56461