In re: David J. Buchanan

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 12/9/2013. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

)
)
)
)
)

In re:
DAVID J. BUCHANAN,
Debtor.
DAVID J. BUCHANAN,

Case No. 04-12419-JKF

)

Appellant,
v.

TRUSTEE MICHAEL B. JOSEPH,
Appellee.

Chapter 13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 13-193-SLR

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
At Wilmington this

~ day of December, 2013, having reviewed the appeal

taken by prose appellant David J. Buchanan and the papers submitted in connection
therewith, the court issues its decision based on the following reasoning;
1. Background. Appellant David J. Buchanan 1 filed a prose voluntary petition
under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code ("the bankruptcy action") on August 24, 2004
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. (B.D. 2 1) Appellee,
Michael B. Joseph, Esquire, is the standing Chapter 13 trustee. On April 14, 2005,

1

Apparently, after filing for bankruptcy, appellant was convicted and sentenced to
a term of imprisonment.
2

References to the bankruptcy court docket.

appellant's former spouse, Barbara H. Richards, 3 moved to dismiss the bankruptcy
action. (B.D. 57) A hearing on the motion was conducted on November 21, 2006.
(B.D. 167) On December 1, 2006, the bankruptcy court dismissed the case with
prejudice and barred refiling for two years. (B.D. 174)
2. Appellant appealed the order and, on September 26, 2007, this court
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal order. (In re
Buchanan, 07-34-SLR (D.I. 34)) From October 2, 2007 through September 1, 2011,
appellant filed pleadings and letters requesting either reconsideration of the dismissal
order, reopening of the case for relief from judgment. 4 (B.D. 204, 206, 207, 209, 213,
214, 216, 217, 218, 224, 225, 226, 227) The bankruptcy court denied these attempts
with five separate orders. (D.B. 205, 208, 211, 215, 220)
3. On September 1, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered an order denying
appellant's motion to reopen his Chapter 13 case and permanently enjoined him from
filing any other documents with the court in that case. (B.D. 228) In response,
appellant filed additional motions requesting relief from the September 1, 2011 order.
(B.D.230,231,232, 233)

3

0n May 19, 2005, the bankruptcy court granted Ms. Richards' request for relief
from the automatic stay in order to pursue matters (emanating from the dissolution of
their marriage) in Family Court. (B.D. 46, 68)
4

During this period, appellant filed a petition under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy
Code, which was subsequently dismissed. In re Buchanan, Bankr. Case No. 07-11647.
About a year later, appellant filed another petition under Chapter 12, which was
dismissed as well. In re Buchanan, Bankr. Case No. 08-13369. Appellant then filed an
adversary action against Ms. Richards to avoid the transfer of his interest in a farm they
owned. Buchanan v. Richards, Adv. Proc. No. 09-50051. The bankruptcy court denied
appellant's motion for default judgment on the basis that the bankruptcy case had been
dismissed. (/d. at 4)

2

4. On November 4, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered an order: (1) striking the
motions; (2) requiring the clerk of court to reject filings in the case; and (3) notifying
appellant of impending sanctions for contempt if he continued to violate the court's
order of September 1, 2011. (B.D. 235) On November 4, 2011, appellant filed his
notice of appeal of the bankruptcy court's November 4, 2011 order and requested
permission to proceed in forma pauperis. (B.D. 236) On December 5, 2011, the
bankruptcy court issued an "order in the form of report and recommendation," wherein
the court certified that the appeal was frivolous at best and malicious at worse and
recommended denial of the appeal. (B.D. 242)
5. On October 1, 2012, this court entered a memorandum order dismissing the
appeal, but remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court. The court concluded that,
before the bankruptcy court could impose a filing injunction, an order to show cause
hearing was necessary to afford appellant the opportunity to respond to the potential
sanctions. In re Buchanan, Civ. No. 11-1227 (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2012).
6. On October 4, 2012, the bankruptcy court scheduled a rule to show cause
hearing to determine why appellant should not be barred from future filings in the
bankruptcy action. (B.D. 248)
7. From October 18, 2012 to November 30, 2012, appellant filed (in the
bankruptcy action) seven pleadings and a proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law. Appellant also filed a request for mandate of dischargeability of claim. (B.D. 255)
8. On December 11, 2012, the bankruptcy court held a hearing, with appellant
participating by telephone due to his incarceration in a Delaware state prison. (D.I. 2-3)
Appellant was afforded the opportunity to respond to the order to show cause.

3

9. Later that same day, the bankruptcy court issued three orders. In the first,
the bankruptcy court denied appellant's findings of fact and conclusions of law,
concluding they were without merit or had already been adjudicated. (D. I. 2-1) By
separate order, the bankruptcy court dismissed as moot appellant's request for a
mandate of dischargeability of claims, finding that the claims were moot "inasmuch as
the case was dismissed for failure to present a confirmable plan on December 1, 2006
and dismissal was affirmed on appeal." (D. I. 2-2)
10. The bankruptcy court's third order addressed the order to show cause
hearing and imposed a permanent injunction on appellant's filing in the bankruptcy
action. (D. I. 2-3 at 1-9) With meticulous detail, the bankruptcy court outlined the
procedural history of the bankruptcy action, as well as the appeals, adversary actions
and ancillary hearings resulting therefrom. The court considered the arguments
presented by appellant at the order to show cause hearing and characterized his
responses as implicating the "very same issues previously adjudicated" and noted that
appellant "presented no justification for reopening [the bankruptcy action] which was
dismissed over six years ago .... " (D. I. 2-3 at 9) Concluding that "there is no purpose
in filing further pleadings in this case," the bankruptcy court ordered appellant
"permanently enjoined and barred from filing any pleading, letter, document, or other
item in this case." (/d. at 10)

4

11. Appellant initiated this appeal 5 on December 20, 2012. (D. I. 2) In his
papers, appellant describes with great detail the history of the bankruptcy action and
sets forth, what he perceives as, errors and injustices. (D. I. 14) He seeks several
forms of relief, including the reopening of the bankruptcy action, a rescinding of all real
estate sales conducted, sanctions of all fraudulent creditors and an order to show
cause against his ex-wife.
12. In response, the Trustee states that appellant's arguments have been
addressed by the bankruptcy court or mooted by the dismissal order of the bankruptcy
action. Instead, the narrow issue before the court is whether the permanent injunction
was proper. The court agrees. The record demonstrates that the matter at bar
emanates directly from this court's October 1, 2013 order of remand with instructions to
conduct an order to show cause hearing before imposing a permanent injunction.
13. Standard of Review. This court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the
bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). In undertaking a review of the issues
on appeal, the court applies a clearly erroneous standard to the bankruptcy court's
findings of fact and a plenary standard to that court's legal conclusions. See Am. Flint
Glass Workers Union v. Anchor Resolution Corp., 197 F.3d 76, 80 (3d Cir. 1999). With

mixed questions of law and fact, the court must accept the bankruptcy court's "finding of
historical or narrative facts unless clearly erroneous, but exercise[s] 'plenary review of
the [bankruptcy) court's choice and interpretation of legal precepts and its application of

5

Appellant has appealed the three orders issued by the bankruptcy court on
December 11, 2012, relating to the findings of fact and conclusions of law, mandate of
dischargeability and injunction).

5

those precepts to the historical facts."' Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Metro Communications,
Inc., 945 F.2d 635, 642 (3d Cir. 1991) (citing Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C.A. Hughes &
Co., 669 F.2d 98, 101-02 (3d Cir. 1981)). The district court's appellate responsibilities
are further informed by the directive of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, which effectively reviews on a de novo basis bankruptcy court opinions. In re
Hechinger, 298 F.3d 219, 224 (3d Cir. 2002); In re Telegroup, 281 F.3d 133, 136 (3d

Cir. 2002).
14. Analysis. Bankruptcy courts possess "broad equitable power to issue any
order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions
of the [Bankruptcy] Code." Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 88 (1991 ).
However, "[a] pre-filing injunction is the exception to the general rule of free access to
the courts and its use against a prose plaintiff must be approached with caution."
Grossberger v. Ruane, 2013 WL 4406661, *1 (3d Cir. Aug. 19, 2013). In order to

impose an injunction, a court must comply with three requirements: (1) the litigant must
be continually abusing the judicial process; (2) the litigant must be afforded notice of the
potential injunction and the opportunity to oppose and be heard; and (3) the injunction
must be narrowly tailored to the specific circumstances of the case. Brow v. Farrelly,
994 F.2d 1027, 1038 (3d Cir. 1993).
15. Considering this authority, the court finds that the bankruptcy court's
imposition of the injunction was warranted based on appellant's filing record in this
case. First, since the bankruptcy action was closed in 2006, appellant has filed an
extraordinary number of pleadings and repeatedly presented the same issues. None of

6

his filings have presented a meritorious basis for reopening the bankruptcy case. (See
D.I. 2-3 1-1 0) Appellant's claims have been considered by the bankruptcy court and
affirmed by the district court on appeal. Nonetheless, appellant relentlessly continues
to file repetitive motions even after the bankruptcy action has been closed for over six
years.
16. With respect to opportunity to be heard, the bankruptcy court scheduled an
order to show cause hearing and the record reflects that appellant participated by
telephone due to his incarceration. Additionally, appellant responded in writing to the
order to show cause with proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law and a
request for a mandate. The record unequivocally demonstrates that appellant was
afforded an opportunity to address the court and did, in fact, do so. Moreover, the
bankruptcy court clearly considered his arguments and filings in forming its opinion.
(D.I. 2-1.2-2,2-3 at 9-10)
17. With regard to the third requirement necessary before a filing injunction can
be imposed, the court finds that the bankruptcy court's injunction is narrowly tailored to
fit the circumstances of the case. Significantly, the injunction is limited to the
bankruptcy action and does not implicate other cases that appellant may have pending.
18. Conclusion. For the reasons stated, the court concludes that the
bankruptcy court's decision should be affirmed and appellant's appeal dismissed. An
order shall issue.

7

his filings have presented a meritorious basis for reopening the bankruptcy case. (See
D .I. 2-3 1-1 0) Appellant's claims have been considered by the bankruptcy court and
affirmed by the district court on appeal. Nonetheless, appellant relentlessly continues
to file repetitive motions even after the bankruptcy action has been closed for over six
years.
16. With respect to opportunity to be heard, the bankruptcy court scheduled an
order to show cause hearing and the record reflects that appellant participated by
telephone due to his incarceration. Additionally, appellant responded in writing to the
order to show cause with proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law and a
request for a mandate. The record unequivocally demonstrates that appellant was
afforded an opportunity to address the court and did, in fact, do so. Moreover, the
bankruptcy court clearly considered his arguments and filings in forming its opinion.
(D.I. 2-1. 2-2, 2-3 at 9-10)
17. With regard to the third requirement necessary before a filing injunction can
be imposed, the court finds that the bankruptcy court's injunction is narrowly tailored to
fit the circumstances of the case. Significantly, the injunction is limited to the
bankruptcy action and does not implicate other cases that appellant may have pending.
18. Conclusion. For the reasons stated, the court concludes that the
bankruptcy court's decision should be affirmed and appellant's appeal dismissed. An
order shall issue.

United States

7

stnct Judge