Lewis v. U.S. Trustee
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/27/2017. (c/m 2/27/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TilE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case No.: G./l1-16-2440
Appellant Esther Lewis. proceeding pro se. has tiled an appeal of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court's June 9. 2016 order dismissing her case. terminating the automatic stay imposed pursuant
to 11 U.S.c. ~ 362(a) and imposing a two-year equitable servitude as to I.ewis' interests in real
property. See ECF NO.1: ECF NO.1-I. For the reasons that follow. Appellant's Appeal is
Bankruptcy Rule 8018 requires Appellant to "serve and lile a brief within 30 days after
the docketing ofnotiee that the reeord has been transmitted or is available eleetronieally," See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 80 18(a)( 1). The Designation of Record was docketed on August 9. 2016. ECF
Nos. 3-6. and on August 10.2016. Appellant was sent a letter notifying her that she had 30 days
to tile her brief. ECF NO.7. On Oetober 4. 2016. this Court granted Appellant a 30-day extension
to file a brief. ECF No. 10. On November 23. 2016. this Court granted Appellant an additional
30 days to tile a brief. ECF No. 12. For a third time. on January 26. 2017. the Court again
granted Appellant an additional 14 days to tile a brief. ECF No. 14.
On February 10.2017. alier failing to receive Appellant's brief fiJr approximately live
months. the Court ordered Appellant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed f()r
failure to comply with Fed. R. 13ankr. 1'. 801 8(a)( I). ECF No. 15. Appellant was warned that
failure to respond to the order within seven days would lead to dismissal of the appeal.1 To date.
the Court has not received any response to the show cause order.
Local Rule 404.3 permits the Court to dismiss an appeal f()r non-compliance with
13ankruptey Rule 8018 "alier giving the appellant an opportunity to explain the non-compliance
and upon considering whether the non-compliance had prejudicial effect on the other parties'"
Sec Loc. R. 404.3 (D. Md. 2016). Also. Fed. R. Bankr. 1'. 8003(2) (formerly cited as Rule
800 I(a») provides that "[a]n appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely tiling of a
notice of appeal docs not aff'cct the validity of the appeal. but is ground only for the district
court. .. to act as it considers appropriate. including dismissing the appeal." In determining
whether to dismiss a bankruptcy appeal for a 8003(2) violation. a district court must: ..( 1) make a
finding of bad faith or negligence: (2) give the appellant notice and an opportunity to explain the
delay: (3) consider whether the delay had any possible prejudicial eff'cel on the other parties:
[and] (4) indicate that it considered the impact of the sanction and available alternatives."
/farris. 129 F.3d 1259. *2 (4th Cir. 1997) (unpublished) (citing
F.2d 1309. 1311 (4th Cir. 1992): sec a/so
re Sara Builda.\'. //1c .. 970
re Weiss. 111 FJd 1159. 1173 (4th Cir. 1997)
(noting all factors should be considered and the second factor alone is insufficient to dismiss an
Because Appellant is pro-sc. this order. and all other orders in this casco
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?