eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-01

Ivan Rene Moore v. Kimberly Barbour ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KIMBERLY BARBOUR,                        No.    17-56914
Debtor.                            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02857-SJO
______________________________
IVAN RENE MOORE,                                MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY BARBOUR; RONALD
HILLS,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before:      TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Creditor Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
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).
dismissing as moot his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his
motion for relief from the automatic stay in Barbour’s bankruptcy case. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for clear error factual findings
about mootness, and de novo legal conclusions. Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC
(In re Mortgs. Ltd.),
    771 F.3d 1211
    , 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moore’s appeal as moot because there
is no effective relief that can be fashioned where the property at issue has been
seized by a third party pursuant to a district court order enforcing a federal
judgment. See Motor Vehicle Cas. Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe
Insulation Co.),
    677 F.3d 869
    , 880 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing constitutional
mootness in the bankruptcy context).
To the extent Moore is challenging the district court’s order as a
representative of Ronald Hills, the appeal is dismissed because Moore, as a non-
attorney, “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” C.E.
Pope Equity Tr. v. United States,
    818 F.2d 696
    , 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2                                     17-56914
Moore’s requests for oral argument, set forth in his opening and reply briefs,
are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                   17-56914