Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0392-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: INGLEWOOD WOMAN’S CLUB, INC., Debtor. Marlene Fearing, Appellant.
    No. 17-60053
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    Marlene Fearing, Pro Se
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marlene Fearing appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the Inglewood Woman’s Club, Inc.’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 168(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court properly denied Fearing’s motion to compel the bankruptcy court to initiate a criminal investigation because the bankruptcy court lacked the authority to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334(b); Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles ( In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that bankruptcy jurisdiction is limited to civil proceedings).

We reject as without merit Fearing’s contentions that the BAP misconstrued the scope of appeal and that the bankruptcy court and BAP violated due process.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.