In Re: Wallace

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6 ) is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED in its entirety. 2. The Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. 5 ) is GRANTED. 3. In light of this di smissal, Mr. Wallaces appeal (Dkt. 4 ) is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)(Emailed to TLM, sh, & ar at Bankruptcy Court.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

In re:
BK Case No. 11-21077-TLM
LEONARD OTTO WALLACE,
PAMELA R. WALLACE,
Debtors.
LEONARD OTTO WALLACE,
Appellant,

MEMORANUDM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
Case No. 2:15-CV-00352-EJL
NORMAN HAYES and RODNEY
HAYES,
Appellees.

Pro Se Appellant Leonard O. Wallace (“Mr. Wallace”) appeals the following
orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho in 1121077-TLM: Order Denying Motion to Compel Abandonment of Wyoming Claim (Dkt.
1-3); Order Denying Motion to Compel Abandonment of Particular Montana Claim (Dkt.
1-4); Order Denying Requests for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 1-5); Order Granting Motion to
Quash Subpoena (Dkt. 1-6); Order Denying Motion to Correct Court Record and

Supplemental Motion Re Same (Dkt. 1-7); and Order Allowing Trustee’s Final Report
and Directing Distribution (Dkt. 1-8). Appellees and creditors Norman and Rodney
Hayes (the “Hayes”) have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal (Dkt. 6) and Motion for
Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. 5). The Hayes have also responded to the appeal (Dkt. 8),
as has Chapter 7 Trustee Jeremy J. Gugino (“Trustee”). (Dkt. 9).
Having reviewed and considered all the briefing of the parties, the Court
concludes that oral argument is not necessary. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 78; Willis v. Pacific
Maritime Ass’n, 244 F.3d 675, 684 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 158. For the reasons stated below, the Hayes’ Motion to Dismiss Mr.
Wallace’s appeal is granted.
BACKGROUND
The history of this case is outlined in two prior decisions rejecting Mr. Wallace’s
repeated appeals, 2:14-cv-00229-EJL and 2:15-cv-00054-EJL,1 as well as in countless
decisions by the Bankruptcy Court, and will not be repeated here. See, e.g., (Dkts. 10-1,
10-3, 10-4, 10-8.) As the two prior orders by this Court detail, Mr. Wallace has
improperly attempted to re-litigate a 2003 arbitration award throughout his bankruptcy
case. After Mr. Wallace and his wife filed the current bankruptcy on August 15, 2011,
the Hayes filed a proof of claim based on the judgment they obtained against Mr. Wallace
in the 2003 arbitration. Prior to filing for bankruptcy on August 15, 2011, Mr. Wallace

1

Mr. Wallace also appealed an order of the Bankruptcy Court to this Court in
2013, but then withdrew the appeal. Wallace v. Hayes, 13-cv-00238-EJL.

challenged the 2003 arbitration award in a motion to vacate the arbitration award before
the Montana state court, in multiple appeals to the Supreme Court of Montana, as well as
in an action before the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Each of the
Montana tribunals decided against Mr. Wallace.
Following this Court’s rejection of Mr. Wallace’s most recent appeal, Mr. Wallace
filed several motions or requests before the Bankruptcy Court, including the “Motion to
Compel Abandonment of WY Claim,” “Motion to Compel Abandonment of Particular
Montana Claim,” “Motion to Correct Record of Court re: Haye’s [sic] Claim 10,” and
“Supplemental Motion to Correct Record of Court re Haye’s [sic] Claim 10 RE ‘Merit”
and Equity.’” Each of these motions sought the same relief Mr. Wallace has repeatedly
sought before multiple tribunals regarding the 2003 arbitration award and the Hayes’
proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court denied all of these
motions. The Bankruptcy Court also quashed a subpoena Mr. Wallace issued, and
rejected Mr. Wallace’s requests for judicial notice. Finally, the Bankruptcy Court
approved the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Final Report (“TFR”) allowing the distribution of funds
acquired by the Chapter 7 Trustee through the bankruptcy liquidation process.
Mr. Wallace appeals all of the aforementioned decisions by the Bankruptcy Court.
Rather than addressing any purported error within the Bankruptcy Court’s orders, Mr.
Wallace again seeks to challenge the Hayes’ claim, and again presents the same
arguments that have repeatedly been rejected by the Montana Supreme Court, the
Montana federal court, the Bankruptcy Court, and this Court.

ANALYSIS
Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1) requires an appellant to file a designation of items for
the record, and a statement of issues on appeal with the clerk for the Bankruptcy Court.
Mr. Wallace has not made such filings. Under Bankruptcy Rule 8001(a), a district court
may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the rules governing bankruptcy appeals.
Although the Court would not ordinarily be inclined to dismiss a pro se appeal on the
technical ground that it fails to conform to the rules for presenting briefs on appeal, the
present appeal represents Mr. Wallace’s fourth procedurally defective appeal to this
Court, and puts forth the same arguments considered and rejected by this Court in both
2:14-cv-00229-EJL and 2:15-cv-00054-EJL.2
Rather than challenging any particular aspect of the orders he here appeals, Mr.
Wallace asserts that a number of injustices have occurred in the course of his litigation
before various courts. Where, as here, a party fails to properly assign error, the appellate
court cannot review the issue. Watec Co., Ltd. v. Liu, 403 F.3d 645, 649-650 (9th Cir.
2005). Because this Court cannot discern any relationship between the wrongs Mr.
Wallace describes and the orders he appeals, the Hayes’ motion to dismiss the appeal will
be granted.
2

While the Court must make “reasonable allowances” for pro se litigants and
construe their papers liberally, it is still the pro se litigant’s burden to establish a proper
legal basis for the relief sought, and to follow the requirements of the Code, Rules and
Local Rules. Arnold v. Gill (In re Arnold), 252 B.R. 778, 781 n. 2 (9th Cir. BAP 2000)
(“Pro se appellants are accorded some leeway, but cannot ignore the Code and Rules, and
the rules of this court.”) (superseded by statute on other grounds in In re Salgado-Nava,
252 B.R. 778 (9th Cir. BAP 2012)).

The Hayes are entitled to their attorney fees and costs associated with responding
to Mr. Wallace’s frivolous appeal. McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir.
1981). The Hayes are directed to submit an affidavit showing the attorney fees and costs
incurred so the Court may determine the amount of the award.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6) is GRANTED and this appeal is
DISMISSED in its entirety.
2. The Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED.
3. In light of this dismissal, Mr. Wallace’s appeal (Dkt. 4) is DENIED as
MOOT.
DATED: June 27, 2016

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge