UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARTHA AKERS , Appellant,

v. 1368 H STREET LLC , Appellee. Case No. 17-cv-1776 (CRC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pro se appellant Martha Akers no ticed appeals from orders issue d in two adversary proceedings in the Bankruptcy C ourt against 1368 H Street, LLC. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018(a), he r opening brief was initially d ue October 16, 2017, 30 days after the docketing of the reco rd. That day, Akers filed a mot ion for an extension of time. The Court granted her motion, extende d the deadline for her opening brief two weeks until November 3, 2017, and warned that no further e xtensions would be granted . See Minute Order (Oct. 20, 2017). Nonetheless, Akers filed a second request for an emerge ncy stay because of medical issues on November 3, 2017. The Cour t granted her another five -week extension—the period of time the documentation for her motion stated she would need—mov ing her due date to December 11, 2017, and again warned that this would be the last extension granted. See Minute Order (Nov, 27, 2017). When Akers failed to timely f ile her opening brief, the Court i ssued an order on January 2, 2018, directing Akers to show cau se in writing by January 19 , 2018 as to why her case should

1 While the target of the appeals is not precisely clear from th e rather inscrutable appeals notice in the record, in this cas e it appears to challenge the Bankruptcy Court’s remand of an eviction proceeding against appellee to the D.C. Superior Court

.2 not be dismissed. See Minute Or der to Show Cause (Jan. 2, 2018 ). It reiterated this deadline to Akers once more in a minute order issued on January 4, 2018 reg arding an unrelated motion. Akers has failed to either f ile her opening brief or otherwise respond to the Court’s order to show

cause. Under Bankruptcy Rule 8018(a)(4) , if an appellant “fails to fil e a brief on time or within an extended time authorized by t he district court . . . the dis trict court . . . after notice, may dismiss the appeal on its own motion.” Prior to doing so, the Court must generally “provide notice of the potential dismissa l and an opportunity for the er rant litigant to explain its conduct.” English-Speaking Union v. Johnson, 353 F.3d 1013, 1022 (D.C. Ci r. 2004). Pursuant to its authority under Rule 8018(a)(4), the Court will dismiss the appeals filed by Akers of her adversary proceedings. Akers’ opening brief wa s due nearly two months ago, on December 11, 2017, following two ext ensions by the Court. As r equired, the Court warned Akers that the failure to f ile her opening brief or respond to the Court’s order—the deadline for which to do so passed over a week a go—could result in dismissal . Akers neither filed her opening brief nor otherwise res ponded to the Court’s order. Fi nally, the Court concludes that it is in the interests of justice t o dismiss this case. Akers’ fa ilure to file her opening brief is part of a larger pattern of failure to m eet deadlines spanning several months rather than a slight delay or basic proced ural error.3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Akers’ case f or failure to file any opening brief, pursuant to Bankr uptcy Rule 8018(a)(4). A separ ate Order will accompany this memorandum opinion.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge Date: January 31, 2018