FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUG 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 21 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cv -0 00 12 -HLA BKCY No . 07 -0 02 18 BKC-3 F7 InRe: MICHAEL ANTHONY BREWER, Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ GARY C. LINDROS, SR., Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,
ve rs us MIC HAEL AN THONY BREW ER, Defen da nt- App el la nt
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st25 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Deb to r Mi ch ael Ant ho ny Brewer fa il edto fil e h is in it ia l b rie f in th e d is tri ct
co urt an d n ow ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s p ro se app eal fro m th e ba nk rupt cy

co urt’s o rd er (wh ic h d en ie d h is m ot io n fo r an ex te ns io n o f ti m e to fil e
a n ot ic e o f ap pe al ). He als o app eal s t he ba nk rupt cy co urt’s o rd er d en y in g h is
m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n o f ti m e to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al
. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. Pro ceed in gs in B an krupt cy Cour t Thi s ap pe al ari se s fr om

anad ve rs ary pr oc eed in g i n b an kr up tc y co urt be twee n the de bt or , App el la ntMi ch ael Antho ny Brewer (“ Brewe r”), an d Ap pe ll ee Gary C. Lin dr os (“ Lin dr os ”). Bre wer p ro se f il eda Ch ap te r 7 b an krup tc y pe ti ti on . Inba nk rupt cy

co urt, Lin dr os fil edanad ve rs ary pr oc eed in g a ga in stBrewer , ob jecti ng to th e d is ch arg e o f Bre wer’s d eb t. Bre wer co nt in ue d t o re pr es en t hi m se lf. On J ul y 23 , 20 10 , fol lo win g atri al , th e b an krup tc y co urt i ss ue d fi nd in gs of factan d c on cl us io ns of l aw an d e nt ereda jud gm en t ag ai ns t Br ewer o n t wo o f th e
co un ts in Lin dr os ’s com

pl ai nt : fa il ur e to m ai nt ai n a de qu at e rec or ds in co nduc ti ng bu si ne ss , (Co un t 2 ), an d kno win gl y m ak in g fa ls e st at em en ts un de r oa th by fili ng fal se sch edul es an d s ta te m en ts wit h t he bank rupt cy co urt (C ou nt3). The
2ba nk rupt cy

co urt d en ie d B rewer ’s di sc ha rg e. Init s o rd er d en y in g B rewer ’s di sc ha rg e, th e b an krup tc y co urt n ot edBrewer ha d n otco m

pl ie d wi th th e sc he du li ng ord er an d i n fa ctdi d n otfil e h is wit ne ss or
ex hi bi t l is ts un ti l af

te r th e tr ia l b eg an . The co urt g ran te d Li nd ro s’s m ot io n t o st rik e Bre wer’s wit ne ss an d e xh ib itli st s as un ti m el y , whi ch pro hi bi te d B rewer fro m off eri ng do cu m en ta ry

or t es ti m on ia l ev id en ce o th er t ha n h is own tes ti m on y
an d e vi de nc e adm it te d a t a p rev io us he ari ng . In e xp la in in g i ts san ct io n, t he 1 ba nk rupt cy

co urt n ot ed : Defen da nt is no t a no vi ce at li ti ga ti on in th is Co urt or in th e st at e co urt. Defen da nt ha s el ect ed to rep res en t hi m se lf in who le or in pa rt in fiv e se pa rat e ad ve rs ary pr oc eed in gs as so ci at ed wit h thi s ba nkr upt cy cas e. As su ch , Defen da nt is ta sk ed wit h be in g fam il ia r wit h an d co m pl y in g with th e or de rs of th e Co urt. The f a c t t h a t h e is a pr o se li ti ga nt do es no t ex cu se hi s fa il ur e to do so . Not ic e o f th e b an krup tc y co urt’s jud gm en t was sen t t o B rewer on Ju ly 28, 20 10 . On Aug us t 1 3, 2 01 0, Br ewer, p ro se, fi le d a“ Mo ti on forExt en si on of Ti m e fo r Not ic e o f App eal ,” whi ch he lat er am en de d, s ta ti ng he ha d re cei ve d t he jud gm en t o n J ul y

31 an d h is att orne y

ha d b een ou t o f to wn an d u nabl e to fil e th e
The ba nkruptcy court stated: 1 Def

endant [Brew er] did not reque st an extension of the time set fo rt h in the Scheduling Orde r[,] nor did he comply by filing his witness list and exhibi t lists. On August 26, 20[09] , the day befor e the schedule d trial of this matter, Def endant filed a Motion to Continue, which the Court denied. On August 31, 2009, four day s afte r the first day

of trial in this matter, Def endant f iled a Witness and Ex hibit L ist.
3no ti ce o f ap pe al onti m e.

On Au gu st25 , th e b an krup tc y co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, n ot in g t ha t Br ewer’s
no ti ce o f ap pe al was due wit hi n fo urte en da y s o f th e en try of jud gm en t u nd er Ban kr up tc y Ru le 80 02 (a). Th e b an krup tc y co urt co nc lu de d t ha t, u nd er Ru le 80 02 (c), Br ewer h adfai le d t o s ho w exc us ab le ne gl ectforth e d el ay to warran t a ti m e ex te ns io n fo r fi li ng th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al
. The b an krup tc y co urt n ot edth at Brewe r ha d re pr es en te d h im se lf p ro se “ in nu m ero us m at te rs be fo re thi s C ou rt,”
an d c ou ldha ve fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al wit ho utth e as si st an ce o f co un se l, jus t as he fil edhi s m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n o f ti m e. On Se pt em

be r 7, 2 01 0, i n b an krup tc y co urt Br ewer fi le d a“ Mo ti on for Rec on si de rat io n /Reh eari ng for Ext en si on of Ti m e to Fil e an App eal ,” whi ch th e ba nk rupt cy

co urt d en ie d o n Oct ob er 7 , 20 10
. On Oct ob er 1 8, 2 01 0, Br ewer fi le d a
no ti ce o f ap pe al fro m

th e b an krup tc y

co urt’s Oct ob er 7 ord er. B. Pro ceed in gs in Di st ri ct Co urt On J an ua ry

11 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt cl erkfil eda “Not ic e o f Fi li ng Ban kr up tc y App eal inth e Dis tri ctCo urt,” n ot ifyin g t he pa rti es th at , on Jan ua ry 10 , 20 11 , th e rec or d o n app eal fro m th e b an kr

up tc y co urt was fil ed . The n ot ic e ad vi se d t he pa rti es th atth ey m us t co m pl y wit h F ed eral Ru le of B an krup tc y

4Pro cedur e 8 00 9 a ndLoca l Ru le 1.0 5 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a. 2

On J an ua ry

26 , 20 11 , App el le e Lin dr os fil eda m ot io n i n d is tri ctco urt t o di sm is s B rewer ’s app eal , arg ui ng th atun de r Fed eral Ru le of B an kr up tc y Pro cedur e 8 00 9, Br ewer was requi redto serve an d fi le a br ie f wit hi n 1 4 d ay s af te r
en try of t he ap pe al on th e d is tri ctco urt d oc ke t. On Fe brua ry

1, 2 01 1, Br ewer, p ro se, fi le d a“ Mo ti on forExt en si on of Ti m e to Fil e Bri ef,” co nt en di ng th athe rece iv edth e d is tri ctco urt cl erk ’s no ti ce o n Ja nu ary 14 , 20 11 an d m ai le d h is m ot io n 1 4 d ay s l at er, m ak in g h is m ot io n t im el y
un de r “ th e fi fte en da y

de ad li ne pe r Ru le 80 09 .” Brewe r al so reque st edm or e ti m e

“be cau se he ha s n ev er fi le d a n app eal an d n eed s m or e ti m e to un de rs ta ndth e pr oc es s an d fo rm atrequi red .” Brewe r st at edth athe ne ed edass is ta nc e fro m an at to rn ey to co m pl y wit h t he pro pe r req ui rem en ts an d c ou ldno t l oc at e Loc al Ru le 1.0 5 a fte r se arch in g d il ig en tl y . Brewer a ls o fi le d am ot io n t o s tri ke Lin dr os ’s
m ot io n t o d is m is s, ar gu in g t ha t Br ewer’s m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n o f ti m e was ti m el y , an d c it in g atypog rap hi cal erro r in th e st y le of Li nd ro s’s m ot io n. Brewe r di d n ot

Fe dera l Rule of Ba

nkruptcy Procedur e 8009 provide s, in part, “Unle ss the district court or the 2 bankruptc y

appellate panel by

local rule or by

order excuses the filingof brief s or spec ifies differ ent time limit s . . . [t ]he appellant shall serve and file a brief w ithin 14 day s after entry of the appe al on the docke t pursuant to Rule 8007.” F ed. R. Ba nkr. P. 8009(a) (1). L ocal Rule 1.05 for

the Middle District of F lorida provides f ormattingand sig nature require ments for a ll filings in that court. The district court cle rk’s notice did not provide the text of the rule s but only

aler ted the par

ties to the rules.

5fil e a s ub st an ti ve an swe r to Lin dr os ’s m ot io n.

Lin dr os res po nd ed , no ti ng th atBrewerha d ahi st ory inth e b an krup tc y

co urt of m is si ng de ad li ne s, cl ai m in g i gn or an ce, an d s eek in g e xt en si on s. Lin dr os
co nt en de d, “ App el la ntwil l d o n ot hi ng an d fi le no th in g u nl es s an d u nt il he is fo rcedby a cou rt d o s o.” Brewe r ne ve r fi le d a n i ni ti al ap pe ll at e b rie f in di st ric t co urt. On Fe brua ry

10 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d atwo -p arag rap h o rd er de nyin g B rewer ’s m ot io n fo r ex te ns io n o f ti m e, gr an ti ng Lin dr os ’s m ot io n t o di sm is s, an d a ffi rm in g t he ba nk rupt cy co urt’s d eci si on . The d is tri ctco urt s ta te d i n fu ll : Thi s Cau se is be fo re th e Co urt on App e l l a n t’s Mo ti on fo r Ext en si on of Tim e (Dkt. 6) an d App el le e’s Mo ti on to Dis m is s (Dkt. 5)
. App el la nt se ek s le av e of co urt to fil e an un ti m el y ap pe al br ie f ba se d on th e fac t t ha t h e is pro ceed in g p ro se. Whi le th e Co urt wou ld or di na ril y gr an t th is type of reque st , in th e in st an t cas e App el la nt fai ls to ci te go od cau se fo r m is si ng th e de ad li ne . Fu rth er, th e un de rlyin g ba nk rupt cy or de r be in g ap pe al ed is a de ni al of ap pe ll an t’s m ot io n to reco ns id er a m ot io n fo r ex te n si on of ti m e to fil e hi s ap pe al
. Giv en th e f a ct th at App el la nt ha s a hi st ory of m is si ng de ad li ne s, an d fai ls to art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e re a s o n f o r m is si ng th e de ad li ne forfil in g h is bri ef i n t hi s ca se , itis ORDERED: 1. App el la nt ’s Mo ti on fo r Ex t e ns io n of Tim e (Dkt. 6) is DENIED; 2. App el le e’s Mo ti on t o Dis m is s (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED; th e ba nk rupt cy co urt’s de ci si on is AFFIR MED. The cl erk is di rect ed
6to clo se th e fi le
.

Brewe r no w app eal s (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt’s Fe brua ry 10 , 20 11 di sm is sa l o f hi s ap pe al an d (2 ) th e b an krup tc y co urt’s Oct ob er 7 , 20 10 ord er d en y in g h is

“ Mo ti on forReco ns id erat io n /Reh eari ng forExt en si on of Ti m e to Fil e an App eal .” II . DISCUSSI ON 3 Fed eral Ru le of B an krup tc y Pro cedur e 8 00 9( a)(1 ) pr ov id es , “ Unl es s t he di st ric t co urt o r th e b an krup tc y ap pe ll at e p an el by loc al rul e o r by ord er ex cu se s th e fi li ng of b rie fs or s pe ci fie s d iff eren t t im e li m it s . . . [t]he ap pe ll an t s ha ll serve
an d fi le a br ie f wit hi n 1 4 d ay s af te r en try of t he ap pe al on th e d oc ke t p ur su an t t o Ru le 80 07 .” (Em

ph as is ad de d) . Rul e 9 00 6 g ov ern s h ow t im e p eri od s ar e 4 cal cu la te d. Rul e 9 00 6 a ls o s ta te s:

5

We reviewfor a

buse of discr etion a district cour t’s decision to dismiss a bankruptcy appea l for 3 failure to diligently

prosec ute the appe al. Py ramid Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Speake , 531 F.2d 743, 744-46 (5th Cir. 1976); see Bonne r v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adoptingas bindingprec edent a ll Fifth Circuit decisions issued on or bef ore Septe mber 31, 1981). We revie w a ba nkruptcy court’s r ulings on motions for extension of time for abuseof discretion. Coady

v. D.A.N. JointVenture I I I , L .P., (In re Coady ), 588 F .3d 1312, 1316 (11th Cir. 2009). Fe dera l Rule of Ba

nkruptcy Procedur e 8007 provide s, inter alia, the pr ocedur e for the transmittal 4 of the re cord a

nd docketing

of an a ppeal f rom bankruptc y

court. Fe dera l Rule of Ba

nkruptcy Procedur e 9006(a )(1) states: 5 When the period is stated in day s or a long er unit of time:

(A) e x clude the da

y of the e vent that trig g ers the pe riod; (B ) count ever

y day , incl uding intermediate Saturday s, Sunday s, and leg al

7[W] he n an act is requi red or al lo wed to be do ne at or wit hi n a sp eci fie d

pe rio d by th es e ru le s or by a no ti ce gi ve n th ereu nd er or by or de r of co urt, th e co urt fo r cau se sh own m ay at an y ti m e in it s di sc ret io n . . . on m ot io n m ad e aft er t he ex pi rat io n o f th e sp eci fie d pe rio d pe rm it th e act to be do ne whe re th e fai lu re to act was th e res ul t of excu sabl e ne gl ect
. Fed . R. Ban kr . P. 90 06 (b )(1 ). Thi s C ou rt i nt erp ret edBan krup tc y Ru le 80 09 in Brak e v . Tavo rm in a (In re Bev erl y Man uf actur in g C or

p.), 7 78 F.2d66 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) . In t ha t ca se , a di st ric t co urt s uasp on te di sm is se d t he ap pe ll an t’s ap pe al fro m a ba nk rupt cy

co urt de ci si on forfai lu re t o fi le bri efs wit hi n t he th en -1 5- da y de ad li ne aft er the en try of th e ap pe al on th e co urt d oc ke t. Id . at 6 66 . W e h el d t ha t t he su a sp on te di sm is sa l of anap pe al fro m

a ba nk rupt cy

de ci si on is pro pe r on ly whe re “ ba d fa ith,
ne gl ig en ce o r in di ffer en ce” h as be en sh own , a “ fle xi bl e st an da rd .” Id . at 6 67 . W e
no te d t ha t “ [d ]ism is sa l t y pi cal ly occu rs in cas es sh owi ng co ns is te nt ly dil at ory
co nduc t o r th e co m

pl et e fai lu re t o t ak e an y

st ep s o th er t ha n t he m ere f il in g o f a
no ti ce o f ap pe al .” Id . at 6 67 . W e rem an de d t he cas e fo r a d et erm in at io n o f whe th er t he ap pe ll an t’s re as on s fo r th e d el ay were s up po rte d a ndsu ffi ci en t t o
ex cu se th e la te fil in g. Id . at 6 67 -6 8.

holiday s; and (C) include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday , Sunday , or leg al holiday , the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday , Sunday , or leg al holiday
. Fe d. R. Bankr . P. 9006(a)( 1). 8Here, Br ewer was cle arl y de li nque ntin fil in g h is in it ia l ap pe ll at e b rie f un de r Ru le s 8 00 9 a nd90 06 . Brewer’s ap pe al of t he ba nk rupt cy co urt’s Oct ob er 7 ord er
was en te redon th e d is tri ctco urt d oc ke t o n J an ua ry 10 , 20 11 . Und er Ru le 90 06 , Brewe r’s op en in g app el la te bri ef was du e fo urte en da y s l at er, o n J anua ry 24 , 20 11
. He di d n otfil e a b rie f ora m ot io n fo r m or e ti m e wit hi n t hi s t im e fra m e. Rat he r, on Feb ru ary 1, 2 01 1, Br ewer, p ro se, fi le d o nl y hi s “ Mo ti on forExt en si on of Ti m e to Fi le Bri ef.” An d t he reaf

te r he ne ve r fi le d a n app el la te bri ef. Brewe r’s st at edreas on s fo r m is si ng th is de ad li ne are (1 ) th athe ne ed s t he
as si st an ce o f anatt orne y

an d (2 ) do es no t fu ll y

un de rs ta ndth e ap pe al s p ro ces s. 6 Howev er, we n ot e th atBrewerha d p rio r ex pe rie nc e wit h fi li ng de ad li ne s i n ba nk rupt cy

co urt, al so pro ceed edpro se t hr ou gh ou t t hi s b an kr up tc y cas e, an d was fam il ia r wit h t he co ns eque nc es of l at e fi li ng s. As th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d i n i ts
or de r di sm is si ng th e cas e, Brewe r ex hi bi te d ahi st ory of f ai li ng to m eetfil in g de ad li ne s. Bre wer i gn or edth e sc he du li ng ord er i n the ba nk rupt cy co urt t ria l,

Br ewe r also cla ims his m otion for an e x tension of time was timely beca use he r ece ived notice of 6 the docke ting of

the appe al on J anuar

y 14 and mailed his motion for an e x tension of time 14 day s later. This is not how the dea dline is calcula ted. See F ed. R. Ba

nkr. P. 8009(a) (1) ( requiringan appellant to file a

brief w ithin 14 day s of entry of the a ppeal on the doc ket, rather than r ece ipt of the notice ther eof) ; Fed. R. B ankr. P. 8008(a ) (“ Papers r equire d or per mitted to be filed with the cler k of the district cour

t . . . may be filed by

mail addre ssed to the cler k, but filing is not timely unless the pape rs ar e re ceive d by the cler k within the time fix ed for filing, e x cept that br iefs ar e deeme d filed on the da

y of mailing .”). B eca

use B rew er f

iled a motion and not a brie f, his motion was de emed f

iled when r ece ived by

the cler k. 9le ad in g t he di st ric t co urt t o e xc lu de hi s wi tn es s an d e xh ib itli st s wh en th ey were fil edlat e. Infact , Brewer ’s app eal he re (as to th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l fo r la ck of hi s b rie f) i s i ts el f anap pe al fro m th e b an kr

up tc y co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s re qu es ts fo r an ex te ns io n o f ti m e to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al aft er t he de ad li ne ha d p as se d. The se ov eral l p art ic ul ar ci rcu m st an ces of B rewer ’s cas e d em on st rat e
su ffi ci en t “ in di ffer en ce” a nd“ co ns is te nt ly dil at ory co nduc t” su ch th atwe can no t
sa y th e d is tri ctco urt co m

m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r in di sm is si ng Brewer ’s app eal
. See B ev erl y

Mfg . Cor p., 7 78 F.2dat 6 67 . “ [A]lth ou gh we are t o g iv e li be ral
co ns tru ct io n t o t he pl ead in gs of p ro se l it ig an ts , we nev ert he le ss ha ve requi red th em to co nf orm to pro cedur al rul es .” Alb ra v . Adv an , Inc ., 49 0 F .3d82 6, 8 29 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Nordi d B rewerde m on st rat e “ ex cu sabl e n eg le ct ” u nd er Ru le 90 06
.

“ Exc us ab le ne gl ectis ge ne ral ly an ‘equ it ab le in qu iry’ ba se d upo n t he parti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of the cas e.” Co nn . Sta te Dent al Ass ’n v. An th em Heal th Pla ns , In c., 59 1 F .3d13 37 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Pio ne er In v. Se rv s. Co . v. Bru ns wickAss oc s. Lt d. P’sh ip , 50 7 U.S. 3 80 , 38 9, 1 13 S. Ct. 1 48 9, 1 49 5 (1 99 3) ). Brewe r’s pa tt ern of l at e fi li ng s i n t he ba nk rupt cy co urt an d h is fai lu re t o fi le
an ap pe ll at e b rie f in di stric t co urt, ev en at t hi s l at e d at e, ha s g reat ly del ay edth e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs . Brewer’s fi li ng was wi th in hi s re as on ab le co nt ro l an d was
10no t i na dv ert en t. By hi s o wn ad m is si on , he r ecei ve d n ot ic e o f th e d oc ke ti ng of t he

ap pe al on Jan ua ry

14 , 20 10 . Giv en hi s ex te ns iv e ex pe rie nc e wit h b an kr up tc y pr oc edur es an d t he reco rdof h is pri orde la y edfil in gs , we can no t s ay th atth e di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g B rewer ’s reque stforlat e fi li ng of h is ap pe ll at e b rie f. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edab ov e, we co nc lu de th atBrewer ’s app eal was pr op erl y di sm is se d b y

th e d is tri ctco urt. 7 AFFIR MED.

Although B rew er a lso appea ls the bankruptcy court’s de nial of his “Motion for Rec onsideration 7 / Rehear ing f

or Extension of Time to File an Appe al,” the district c ourt neve r addr essed the merits of this order be fore dismiss ing the case . Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt’s dismiss al of B rew er’ s appea l was prope r, we do not rea ch the merits of the bankruptc y court’s denial of B rew er’ s motion for rec onsideration. 11