In re: Michael R. Shemonsky v. , 441 F. App'x 847 ( 2011 )

CLD-231 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 11-1227
____________
In Re: MICHAEL SHEMONSKY,
Appellant.
__________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 09-cv-00197)
District Judge: John E. Jones, III
__________________________________
Submitted for Possible or Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 8, 2011
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 3, 2011)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Michael R. Shemonsky initially sought to reopen a bankruptcy case that
had been dismissed. After a hearing on December 17, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court
denied his motion to reopen. Shemonsky appealed that order to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In an order entered on March 13, 2009,
the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order and summarily denied
1
Shemonsky’s appeal because he had failed to raise any issue of merit. Upon review of
the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on December 17, 2008, we agreed
that Shemonsky raised no issue of arguable merit and summarily affirmed the judgment
of the District Court. See In re: Shemonsky, 331 Fed. Appx. 104 (3d Cir. 2009).
At issue in the instant appeal, Shemonsky filed a motion in the district court,
which he based on Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. Pro. In an order entered on January 6, 2011,
the District Court denied the motion. The court noted that Shemonsky was essentially
arguing that United States Bankruptcy Judge John J. Thomas could not preside over the
underlying bankruptcy case because he is not a judge appointed under Article III of the
United States Constitution. The District Court Judge denied Shemonsky’s Rule 60
motion, noting that Judge Thomas was appointed pursuant to Article I of the United
States Constitution, and, as such, he has full authority and jurisdiction to preside over
bankruptcy matters, including Shemonsky’s bankruptcy matter.
Shemonsky filed a timely motion for reconsideration, in which he argued that
federal district judges are “tyrannical,” and Judge Thomas is discriminated against
because he does not get equal pay. The District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration in an order entered on January 12, 2011, observing that Shemonsky was
wasting the court’s time.
Shemonsky appeals. Our Clerk advised him that we might act summarily to
dispose of the appeal. In addition to submitting numerous documents in support of his
appeal, Shemonsky has filed several motions, all of them plainly lacking in merit.
2
Generally, the District Court has jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court’s
orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and we have jurisdiction to review the District
Court’s order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and § 1291. We will summarily affirm the order
of the District Court because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, Third
Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We are in complete agreement with the District
Court’s analysis. As the District Court concluded, Congress, in reliance upon power
expressly granted to it by Article I, § 8, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, has
authorized bankruptcy judges like Judge Thomas to conduct core bankruptcy
proceedings. Bankruptcy judges do not have Article III status, Northern Pipeline Constr.
Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 61 (1982), and Judge Thomas need not be
an Article III judge to preside over Shemonsky’s cases. See generally Phar-Mor, Inc. v.
Coopers & Lybrand, 22 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing the distinction
between core and non-core proceedings).
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the orders of the District
Court denying Shemonsky’s “Rule 60(b)” motion and motion for reconsideration.
Shemonsky’s motions on appeal to supplement the record under Fed. R. App. Pro. 10(e);
to seize, etc.; and to transfer his bankruptcy cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
all are denied.
3