Antonia Garcia Mendoza V.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ANTONIA GARCIA MENDOZA; No. 14-60026
FRANCISCO MORENO MAGANA,
BAP No. 13-1499
Debtors,
______________________________
MEMORANDUM*
ANTONIA GARCIA MENDOZA;
FRANCISCO MORENO MAGANA,
Appellants,
v.
DANIEL H. BRUNNER,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Jury, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Chapter 13 debtors Antonia Garcia Mendoza and Francisco Moreno Magana
(“debtors”) appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order
dismissing for failure to prosecute their appeal from the bankruptcy court. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion.
Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtors’ appeal for
failure to file an adequate opening brief or excerpts of record after the BAP
provided multiple warnings that failure to submit required materials would result in
dismissal of the appeal. See id. at 1189-91; see also 9th Cir. BAP R. 8018(a)-2
(BAP may dismiss the appeal if appellant fails to file “an opening brief timely, or
otherwise fails to comply with rules or orders regarding processing the appeal”);
Clinton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Clinton), 449 B.R. 79, 83 (9th Cir.
BAP 2011) (pro se litigants in bankruptcy proceedings are not excused from
compliance with procedural rules).
We reject as without merit debtors’ contentions regarding due process and
mandatory appointment of counsel.
Because we affirm the BAP’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not
consider debtors’ challenge to the bankruptcy court’s decisions. See In re
2 14-60026
Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-60026