Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00049/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00049-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary A. Barney
Appellee
Robert M. Lane
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

—————————————————

IN RE ROBERT M. LANE, also known as 

Bob Lane,

 Debtor.

__________________________________

ROBERT M. LANE, 

 Appellant,

v.

GARY A. BARNEY, Chapter 7 Trustee

 Appellee.

BAP No. WY-15-049

BAP No. WY-15-050

BAP No. WY-15-051

BAP No. WY-15-052

BAP No. WY-15-053

Bankr. No. 11-20398

Chapter 7

ORDER DISMISSING 

APPEALS

December 21, 2015

—————————————————

Before KARLIN, Chief Judge, CORNISH, and JACOBVITZ, Bankruptcy Judges.

—————————————————

Upon filing his five Notices of Appeal, Appellant failed to pay the filing and 

docketing fees. Contemporaneously with the Notices of Appeal, Appellant filed an 

application to waive the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f) (“Fee Wavier Motion”) in 

the bankruptcy court. Based on the deficient filing and docketing fees, the Notice of 

Deficiency and Order to Show Cause (“Notice of Defiency”) [BAP ECF No. 3] was 

entered on November 12, 2015, requiring Appellant to provide this Court with status 

updates on the Fee Waiver Motion and provide a copy of the bankruptcy court’s ruling on 

the Fee Waiver Motion.

BAP Appeal No. 15-49 Docket No. 35-1 Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 1 of 3
Appellant then filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without 

Prepayment of Costs or Fees (“BAP Fee Waiver Motion”) in this Court on November 20, 

2015 [BAP ECF No. 11]. The Court entered its Order Denying Motion to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis Without Prejudice (“BAP Fee Waiver Order”) on November 23, 2015 

[BAP ECF No. 17], denying the BAP Fee Wavier Motion and extending the time to file 

the first status report on the Fee Waiver Motion until December 4, 2015.

Appellant filed his Status Report on Motion to File without Prepayment of Filing 

Fees on December 4, 2015 [BAP ECF No. 22], indicating that the bankruptcy court 

entered its Order Denying Debtor’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal without 

Prepayment of Costs or Fees (“Fee Waiver Order”) on December 1, 2015 [Bankr. Dkt. 

Entry 1470]. In the event the bankruptcy court denied the Fee Waiver Motion, the Notice 

of Deficiency and the BAP Fee Waiver Order both required Appellant to pay the filing 

fees within fourteen (14) days.

On December 15, 2015, fourteen (14) days after entry of the Fee Waiver Order, 

Appellant filed his second Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal without Prepayment of 

Costs or Fees (“Second BAP Fee Waiver Motion”) [BAP ECF No. 32], again requesting 

that this Court allow the appeals to proceed without payment of the filing fees. Appellant 

did not pay the filing fees on or before December 15, 2015.

In the BAP Fee Waiver Order, this Court denied the BAP Fee Waiver Motion on 

the basis that 28 U.S.C. § 1930(f) allows bankruptcy and district courts to waive filing 

fees but does not provide bankruptcy appellate panels with authority to waive such fees. 

Further, this Court is not a court of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).1

Accordingly, as the Court has no authority to waive the filing fees, the Second BAP Fee 

Waiver Motion is denied.

1 In re Satterfield, 337 F. App’x 739, 740 (10th Cir. 2009) (precedent restricts bankruptcy 

appellate panels from granting relief under § 1915).

2

 

BAP Appeal No. 15-49 Docket No. 35-1 Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 2 of 3
Therefore, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) The Second BAP Fee Waiver Motion is DENIED.

(2) Appeals WY-15-049, WY-15-050, WY-15-051, WY-15-052, and 

WY-15-053 are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 8003(a)(2); 10th Cir. BAP L.R. 8026-4(b), (c). 

(2) The dismissals are subject to Appellant’s right to cure by paying the 

filing and docketing fees for these appeals to the bankruptcy court

during the rehearing period set forth in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 

Procedure 8022, after which time our mandate will issue, divesting 

this Court of jurisdiction over these appeals. Should the Court 

reinstate the appeals, it will then consider Appellant’s and 

Appellee’s responses to the Order to Show Cause why Appeal 

Should not be Dismissed as Interlocutory [BAP ECF No. 10].

(3) All deadlines previously set in the appeals are VACATED.

For the Panel:

Blaine F. Bates 

Clerk of Court 

3

BAP Appeal No. 15-49 Docket No. 35-1 Filed: 12/21/2015 Page: 3 of 3