Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01913/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01913-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE MATTER OF 

PETER JON PORTER

KIMBERLY ANN PORTER 

Debtors, 

L.C. COHEN

 Appellant,

vs.

PETER JON PORTER,

KIMBERLY ANN PORTER, 

 Appellees. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1913-PHX-FJM

BK NO 04-15273-RTB

ADV. NO. 06-00504 and 06-00533

 ORDER

The court has before it appellant's opening brief (doc. 14) and appellees' response

(doc. 15). We also have before us appellant's motion to disqualify attorney James Syme, Jr.

(doc. 13), and appellant's motion to strike appellees' response to the opening brief (doc. 16).

First, appellant moves to disqualify attorney Syme. Although Syme represented the

appellees in the bankruptcy proceeding, he has not appeared as an attorney of record in this

case, nor is he required to do so. See Ariz. R. Bankr. P. 9010-1(a). The docket caption

Case 2:06-cv-01913-FJM Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Presumably Syme is erroneously listed in the docket caption because of references

to Syme in appellant's notice of appeal. This does not make Syme an attorney of record in

this case. 

- 2 -

indicating that Syme represents appellees is in error1

 and the clerk is instructed to correct the

docket showing that appellees are appearing pro se. The motion to disqualify attorney Syme

is denied as moot (doc. 13). 

Appellees filed a pro se response to appellant's opening brief. They are not required

to seek leave of the court to proceed pro se, even if they were represented by counsel before

the bankruptcy court. The motion to strike appellees' response is denied (doc. 16). 

This is an appeal from the bankruptcy court's dismissal of appellant's two adversary

proceedings. On June 8, 2006, the bankruptcy court granted appellant's motion to reopen

debtor's administrative case, denied appellant's request to waive adversary filing fees, and

ordered appellant to pay the $250.00 filing fee for each of the two adversary actions within

ten days or the cases would be dismissed. On July 17, 2006, the bankruptcy judge dismissed

both adversary proceedings for non-payment of filing fees. (Bankruptcy Record ("BR")

(doc. 3, attachment 2 at 17). Appellant now contends that the bankruptcy court erred in

refusing to waive the filing fees and in denying his motion to consolidate the adversary

proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied appellant's motion to waive the adversary

filing fee based on its conclusion that a bankruptcy court may not authorize a proceeding in

forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), "any court of the United States may authorize

the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees." A

"court of the United States" is defined as "the Supreme Court of the United States, courts of

appeals, district courts constituted by chapter 5 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 451. In Perroton

v. Gray (In re Perroton), 958 F.2d 889, 896 (9th Cir. 1992), the court held that a bankruptcy

court is not a "court of the United States" under § 451 and thus it does not have authority to

waive fees under § 1915(a). Appellant's reliance on United States v. Yochum (In re

Yochum), 89 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1996), is unavailing in that Yochum involved the authority

of a bankruptcy court to award attorney's fees pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7430, which is

Case 2:06-cv-01913-FJM Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

distinguishable from a bankruptcy court's authority to waive filing fees under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a). Id. at 669 (noting that Perroton is distinguishable because the definition of "court"

under 28 U.S.C. § 451 does not apply to the Internal Revenue Code). 

We reject appellant's argument that the imposition of a filing fee violated his

constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has held that due process does not require the

waiver of filing fees for indigent civil litigants involving gratuitous government benefits,

rather than underlying constitutional rights. See United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 93 S.

Ct. 631 (1973) (indigent seeking discharge in bankruptcy); Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656,

93 S. Ct. 1172 (1973) (indigent seeking appellate review of agency decision reducing welfare

benefits). The bankruptcy court did not err in denying the waiver of filing fees. 

Appellant also challenges the bankruptcy court's denial of his motion to consolidate

his two adversary proceedings, each of which required a separate filing fee. The bankruptcy

court denied the motion to consolidate, stating that "[i]f the adversaries are identical or one

is otherwise not necessary, the matters should not be consolidated, instead, the plaintiff

should pick one and proceed accordingly." BR (doc. 3, attachment 2 at 18). Appellant did

not "pick one" as suggested by the bankruptcy court. Instead, he failed to file a fee for either

adversary proceeding. The court did not err in denying the motion to consolidate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AFFIRMING the judgment of the bankruptcy

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING appellant's motion to disqualify attorney

Syme (doc. 13), and DENYING appellant's motion to strike appellees' response (doc. 16).

DATED this 9th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01913-FJM Document 17 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 3