Ball v. Kearney

Filing 9

ORDER re 8 MOTION to "Waive Briefs" or for Extension of Time on Opening Brief filed by Dennis Andrew Ball: As thoroughly explained in the attached Order, the Court partially denies and partially grants Appellant's May 3, 2013 motio n (Doc. 8). The motion is DENIED with one exception. The Court GRANTS Appellant a 35-day extension of the deadline to file his opening brief. The briefing schedule is amended as follows: Appellant's Brief shall be filed by June 14, 2013; Appe llee's Brief shall be filed by July 1, 2013; and Appellant may file a reply brief by July 14, 2013. See Order for page deadlines and other important information (including consequences of failing to timely file opening brief). Signed by Michael J. Reagan on 5/4/13. (soh )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DENNIS ANDREW BALL,
Appellant,
vs.
BOB G. KEARNEY,
Bankruptcy Trustee,
Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-cv-0349-MJR

ORDER ON APPELLANT’S MAY 3, 2013 MOTION
(MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE)
REAGAN, District Judge:
On April 10, 2013, Dennis Ball filed a notice in this District Court, appealing a
March 4, 2013 Order issued by the Honorable Laura K. Grandy, Chief Judge, United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The undersigned District
Judge immediately entered a briefing schedule on the appeal, setting a May 9, 2013
deadline for Ball’s (Appellant’s) initial brief. Later that day, two pleadings were filed in
this case, both submitted by Ball (who proceeds pro se) -- one captioned “Amended
Notice of Appeal” and the other captioned as a “Motion for Accelerated Ruling.
On April 22nd, the undersigned Judge issued an Order herein. The Order
explained that to the extent the April 11, 2013 filings challenged an April 4, 2013 Order
of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which had declined to certify a direct
appeal from the Bankruptcy Court and ruled that Ball must pursue his appeal of the
bankruptcy judge’s order in this District first), the undersigned Judge lacked subject
1|Page

matter jurisdiction to review, reverse, or modify that ruling. Additionally, the April
22nd Order denied Ball’s request to skip the filing of briefs and expedite the Court’s
ruling herein. (Ball purported to waive his right to file a brief and asked the Court to
“render a final order on the record now,” Doc. 6, p. 1).

The undersigned Judge

explained that it had only a minimal record at this point, without developed positions,
legal arguments, or supporting caselaw/authority: “Ball chose to file an appeal to this
Court, this Court has set a briefing schedule, and the parties should file their briefs
applying the proper legal standard to the question of whether/how Judge Grandy erred
in her March 2013 order.” (April 22, 2013 Order, Doc. 7, p. 3). Finally, the undersigned
Judge denied Ball’s one-sentence request to issue a “stay pending appeal order in the
public interest to protect appellant’s Illinois property.”
On May 3, 2013, Ball filed a “Motion for More Time to Prepare Opening Brief
With Stay Order for Leave Pending Appeal” (Doc. 8). It is not entirely clear what this
motion seeks.

It contains several sentences regarding the now-closed appeal in the

Seventh Circuit as well as requests for relief identical to the ones this Court denied just
two weeks ago. The undersigned Judge endeavors to generously construe this latest
motion, given the fact Ball proceeds without the benefit of counsel. Simply put, this
Court cannot discern why Ball discusses his failed direct appeal (from the Bankruptcy
Court’s Order to the Seventh Circuit) or why he attempts to “incorporate the text” from
a motion in the Court of Appeals into the current motion in this District.
The Seventh Circuit refused to hear a direct appeal, closed the case in its Court,
and directed Ball to proceed with his appeal in this District Court. To the undersigned
2|Page

Judge’s knowledge, nothing remains pending in the Seventh Circuit. Ball appears to
not wish to follow the proper steps to pursuing his appeal in this District Court. The
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure call for the filing of briefs in a bankruptcy
appeal. Ball again states that he “waives his right to brief the case” and “moves the
Court to render a final order on the record” (Doc. 8, p. 1). The Court has denied that
request. Ball has shown no ground to reconsider that motion. Ball filed an appeal from
Judge Grandy’s Order. The Court does not have a sufficient “record” to rule on at this
point.

And it would be inappropriate to immediately rule based only on the

submission by one side of the case, without input from the opposing party. This request
is denied.
Ball also resubmits an identical motion for “stay pending appeal order in the
public interest to protect appellant’s Illinois property & Estate” (Doc. 8, p. 1). This, too,
was denied by the Court in the April 22, 2013 Order, a ruling which stands.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ball’s May 3, 2013 motion with one exception.
The Court GRANTS IN PART Ball’s request for extra time to file his opening brief.
Ball requests an additional 45 days to brief the case. The Court, starting with the date
the brief currently is due, will give Ball an additional 35 days to file his opening brief.
Accordingly, the briefing schedule for this appeal is amended as follows:
Appellant’s Brief (no longer than 25 pages) shall be filed by June 14, 2013;
Appellee’s Brief (no longer than 25 pages) shall be filed by July 1, 2013;
Appellant may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) by July 14, 2013.
The Court may set oral argument by separate Order issued at a later date.

3|Page

Appellant Ball is cautioned that the failure to file his initial brief by the June 14,
2013 deadline will result in DISMISSAL of this appeal for lack of diligent prosecution
and/or failure to comply with Court directives. Additional motions to waive briefing
will be summarily denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 4, 2013.
s/Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
United States District Judge

4|Page