Jaramillo v. Dill

Filing 5

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing. Objections to PF&RD due by 3/21/2017. Add 3 days to the deadline if service is by mailing it to the person's last known address (or means described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D) and (F)); if service is by electronic means, no additional days are added. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c).) (ccp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
In re: RAILYARD COMPANY, LLC
Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 15-12386-t11

RICK JARAMILLO,
Appellant,
v.

1:16-cv-00990-MV-LF

CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE CRAIG H. DILL,
Appellee.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on two sua sponte orders to show cause issued
to pro se appellant Rick Jaramillo. Docs. 3, 4. The Court issued the first order to show cause
because Mr. Jaramillo failed to submit his designation of items to be included in the record on
appeal and his statement of the issues as required by FED. R. BANKR. P. 8009, and failed to pay
the required appeal filing fee. Doc. 3 (“first order”). The record indicates that the first order was
sent to Mr. Jaramillo via his email address of record. There is no indication that Mr. Jaramillo
did not receive the first order to show cause. Mr. Jaramillo was required to respond to the first
order by December 5, 2016, but failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court issued a second order to
show cause for Mr. Jaramillo’s failure to comply with the Court’s first order. Doc. 4 (“second
order”). Mr. Jaramillo was required to respond to the second order by March 1, 2017. Id. The
record indicates that the second order was sent to Mr. Jaramillo via his email address of record,
and was mailed to him at his mailing address of record. There is no indication that Mr. Jaramillo
did not receive the second order to show cause. Nonetheless, Mr. Jaramillo failed to respond to
the second order to show cause, in violation of that order.

“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize sanctions, including dismissal . . . for
failing to comply with court rules or any order of the court.” Gripe v. City of Enid, Okl., 312
F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b)). In addition, local rules allow
this Court to dismiss a civil action if, for a period of 90 days, no steps are taken to move the case
forward. D.N.M. LR-Civ. 41.1. Mr. Jaramillo did not respond to either order to show cause, and
has taken no steps to move his case forward since he filed his appeal on September 2, 2016.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court dismiss his bankruptcy appeal with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of the Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition to Mr. Jaramillo at his address of record.
THE PARTIES ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of
a copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, they may file written
objections with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
party must file any objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day
period if that party wants to have appellate review of the proposed findings and
recommended disposition. If no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.

______________________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge

2