Ivan Moore v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 27 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: IVAN RENE MOORE,                         No. 21-56151
    Debtor,                            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-10980-FMO
    ______________________________
    IVAN RENE MOORE,                                MEMORANDUM*
    Appellant,
    v.
    WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; RONALD
    HILLS; DEVRA ALLEN,
    Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 17, 2022**
    Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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 7 debtor Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 158
    (d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of
    discretion. Ash v. Cvetkov, 
    739 F.2d 493
    , 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore’s appeal
    after Moore failed to file the documents required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
    Procedure 8009 in a timely manner. See Fed. Bankr. R. 8003(a)(2) (an appellant’s
    failure to take steps required to prosecute an appeal, other than the timely filing of
    a notice of appeal, may be grounds for sanctions, including dismissal); Pagtalunan
    v. Galaza, 
    291 F.3d 639
    , 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to be
    considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute; a 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)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 
    963 F.2d 1258
    , 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (this court may
    review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings
    to show its consideration of the factors).
    We reject as meritless Moore’s contention that the district court was biased
    against him.
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.
    2                                  21-56151
    See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider
    documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 
    921 F.2d 870
    , 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   21-56151