Alexander McLaren v. Peter Arkison , 695 F. App'x 240 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER McLAREN; et al., No. 15-35849
Appellants, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00575-TSZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PETER H. ARKISON; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alexander McLaren appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Al-
Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed McLaren’s
appeal for failure to prosecute because McLaren had failed to file the opening brief
more than 17 months after the appeal was filed. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing
factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh
penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and
firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to McLaren’s contention, the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his untimely motion for an
extension of time to file the opening brief because McLaren failed to establish
extraordinary circumstances. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d
1253, 1258-62 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors to be
considered before denying an untimely motion for an extension of a deadline).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McLaren’s
motion for reconsideration because McLaren failed to demonstrate any grounds for
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and identifying
circumstances when reconsideration is appropriate).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-35849