Case ID: br_575/html/0298-02.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: Loren MILLER; Sarah Miller, Debtors, Loren Miller, Appellant, v. Andrew D. Geller; Andrew D. & Eileen B. Geller, Trustees of the Geller Trust Dated September 2, 1987, Appellees.
    No. 16-55732
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 21, 2017
    Loren Miller, Pro Se
    Howard Camhi, Attorney, Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for Ap-pellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chapter 7 debtor Loren Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal from the bankruptcy court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller’s appeal because Miller failed to comply with the district court’s orders instructing him to prosecute the appeal, including filing the designations of record, statement of issues on appeal, and notice regarding the ordering of transcripts with the bankruptcy court. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Miller’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his appeal because Miller failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

We reject as meritless Miller’s contentions regarding alleged judicial bias.

Miller’s request to take judicial notice of the underlying proceedings, set forth in his opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.

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