In re: John Mayfield Brazier,III

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL dismissing this appeal and denying as moot Appellant's 9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge James L. Robart.(PM) cc: appellant via first class mail

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

In re:
JOHN MAYFIELD BRAZIER, III,

11

Debtor.

12

CASE NO. C17-1526JLR
Bankruptcy Case No.
17-10187CMA
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13
14

JOHN MAYFIELD BRAZIER, III,

15

Appellant,
v.

16
RONALD G. BROWN,
17
Appellee.
18
19

On November 21, 2017, the court ordered Appellant John Mayfield Brazier, III to

20

show cause within ten (10) days of the entry of the order why the court should not

21

dismiss the bankruptcy appeal for failure to provide a complete record for the purposes of

22

appeal, namely his failure to pay the filing fee, to file the Appellant Designation of

ORDER - 1

1

Record, and to file the Appellant Statement of Issues. (11/21/17 Order (Dkt. # 7)); see

2

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1), 8009(b)(1). The court indicated to Mr. Brazier that a

3

failure to timely respond would result in dismissal of the appeal. (See 11/21/17 Order at

4

1-2.) On November 30, 2017, Mr. Brazier responded, stating that the deficiencies noted

5

in the order are “all in process” and requesting “a brief extension of time, in which

6

Appellant has the opportunity to procure and fulfill said issues.” (OSC Resp. (Dkt. # 8)

7

at 1.) More than two months have passed since Mr. Brazier requested that “brief

8

extension.” (See id.) Mr. Brazier has not filed an additional response, nor has he cured

9

any of the deficiencies noted in the show cause order. (See Dkt.) Accordingly, the court

10

DISMISSES this appeal. Because the appeal is dismissed, Mr. Brazier’s pending motion

11

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. # 9) is DENIED as moot. 1

12

Dated this 9th day of February, 2018.

13
14

A

15

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

16
1

17
18
19
20
21
22

The court denied Mr. Brazier’s first IFP motion (1st IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 4)) because his reported
household income was above 150% of the federal poverty line (see 11/14/17 Order (Dkt. # 5)).
In its order, the court clearly explained the income threshold that made Mr. Brazier ineligible for
IFP status. (See generally id.) Nonetheless, Mr. Brazier filed a second IFP motion that, again,
shows a household income well above the 150% poverty line. (2d IFP Mot. (Dkt. # 9) at 1-3.)
Mr. Brazier’s second motion reports a monthly income of $5,900, equating to a $70,800 yearly
income. (Id.) The federal poverty line for a family of five is $28,780 annually. See Annual
Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 82 Fed. Reg. 8831-32 (Jan. 31, 2017). Mr. Brazier’s
reported income far surpasses 150% of the federal poverty line for a household of five, which is
$43,170. See id. Although the court need not rule on Mr. Brazier’s pending IFP motion, the
court notes that he remains ineligible for IFP status. See id. Mr. Brazier’s pending IFP motion,
which ignores the court’s reasoning in its prior order, does not excuse his failure to adequately
respond to or cure the deficiencies noted in the show cause order. (See 11/21/17 Order.)

ORDER - 2