Chesley v. Gebhardt

Filing 5

ORDER: Thomas Allen Chesley's "Verified Motion to Extend Time to File Designation of Record and Appellant's Brief" (Doc. # 1 ), "Appellant's Motion to Strike Judge K. Rodney May's Order Striking Notice of Appea l" (Doc. # 3 ), and "Appellant's Motion to Use Court's Docket in Lieu of a Separate Designation of Record Docket Sheets" (Doc. # 4 ) are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/15/2016. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
IN RE:
THOMAS ALLEN CHESLEY
Debtor.
_______________________________/
THOMAS ALLEN CHESLEY,
Appellant,
v.

Case No. 8:16-mc-67-T-33
Bankr. No. 8:11-bk-13785-KRM
Adv. No.
8:14-ap-490-KRM

GUY G. GEBHARDT, United States
Trustee,
Appellee.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to three pro
se Motions filed by debtor Thomas Allen Chesley: "Verified
Motion to Extend Time to File Designation of Record and
Appellant's Brief" (Doc. # 1), "Appellant's Motion to Strike
Judge K. Rodney May's Order Striking Notice of Appeal” (Doc.
# 3), and "Appellant's Motion to Use Court's Docket in Lieu of
a Separate Designation of Record Docket Sheets" (Doc. # 4).
The Court denies the Motions as follows.
Discussion
Chesley filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition with the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of

Florida on July 21, 2011, under case no. 8:11-bk-13785-KRM.
That case is still being actively litigated, and the docket
reflects that a hearing is scheduled to take place on June 27,
2016, to determine whether Chesley should be held in contempt.
(Bankr. Doc. # 772).
Chesley has filed numerous appeals in the context of his
bankruptcy case.

For instance, on March 17, 2014, this Court

decided a prior appeal in which it affirmed Judge May's
determination that proceeds from Chesley's personal injury
settlement were not exempt assets. In re Chesley, 526 B.R. 888
(M.D. Fla. 2014).
In the context of a related adversary proceeding (8:14ap-490-KRM), the United States Trustee has filed a petition to
deny Chesley's bankruptcy discharge, arguing that Chesley
committed fraud. At this time, Chesley indicates that he
"filed for an appeal against multiple orders placed by the
bankruptcy court" and specifies that the notice of appeal was
filed on May 16, 2016. (Doc. # 1 at 1).

He requests an

extension of time to file a designation of the record and his
initial brief.

He also indicates that he is having technical

difficulties gaining access to the Court's pacer service and
accordingly seeks to be excused from designating the record instead suggesting that the Court could simply view the
-2-

Bankruptcy Court's docket "in lieu of a separate designation
of record." (Doc. # 4 at 1).

He also raises substantive

arguments concerning the propriety of Judge May's Orders and
seeks an Order from this Court striking the Judge May's Orders
from the record.

None of this relief is appropriate.

Chesley is no stranger to the process of prosecuting a
bankruptcy appeal.

Here, the Court reminds Chesley of the

requirements of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009,
which governs the "Record on Appeal."

That Rule states:

The appellant must file with the bankruptcy clerk
and serve on the appellee a designation of the
items to be included in the record on appeal and a
statement of the issues to be presented.
The
appellant must file and serve the designation and
statement within 14 days after the appellant's
notice of appeal as of right becomes effective
under Rule 8002; or an order granting leave to
appeal is entered.
Fed. R. Bankr. Pro. 8009(a).
The Court is not at liberty to waive the important
procedural requirement of designating the record on appeal.
Nor would the Court be willing to allow Chesley to simply rely
on various court docketsheets that may be available online.
As

the

appellant,

Chesley

must

follow

the

applicable

procedural requirements that are in place for the prosecution
of an appeal. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th
Cir. 1989) (“Once a pro se . . . litigant is in court, he is
-3-

subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).
Chesley expresses his suspicion that the Bankruptcy Court
has placed "blocks" on relevant Court documents "in prevention
of

the

appellant's

appeal."

(Doc.

#

4

at

1).

These

accusations are unfounded, as Chesley stands on equal footing
with all other litigants.

In the instance that Chesley is

having trouble navigating the appellate process as a pro se
litigant, the Court suggests that he may consider retaining an
attorney to assist him in this matter. At this time, however,
the Court denies Chesley's request to extend the deadline to
file a designation of the record and to file the initial brief
because Chesley has not shown good cause.
The Court also denies Chesley's request that this Court
"strike" Orders issued by Judge May.

In requesting that the

Court strike relevant Bankruptcy Court Orders via motion, it
appears that Chesley is attempting to bypass the procedural
requirements attendant to prosecuting a bankruptcy appeal. In
the

instance

that

Chesley

disagrees

with

Orders

of

the

Bankruptcy Court, he should file an appeal, rather than a
miscellaneous motion.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
-4-

(1)

Thomas Allen Chesley's "Verified Motion to Extend Time to
File Designation of Record and Appellant's Brief" (Doc.
# 1), "Appellant's Motion to Strike Judge K. Rodney May's
Order

Striking

Notice

of

Appeal”

(Doc.

#

3),

and

"Appellant's Motion to Use Court's Docket in Lieu of a
Separate Designation of Record Docket Sheets" (Doc. # 4)
are DENIED.
(2)

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this

15th day of June, 2016.

-5-