2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-3-2011

In re: Michael R. Shemonsky

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1227

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In re: Michael R. Shemonsky " (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 709.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/709
1

CLD-231 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1227

____________

In Re: MICHAEL SHEMONSKY,

Appellant.

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 09-cv-00197)

District Judge: John E. Jones, III

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible or Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 8, 2011

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 3, 2011)

____________

OPINION

____________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael R. Shemonsky initially sought to reopen a bankruptcy case that 

had been dismissed. After a hearing on December 17, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court 

denied his motion to reopen. Shemonsky appealed that order to the United States District 

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In an order entered on March 13, 2009, 

the District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s order and summarily denied 
2

Shemonsky’s appeal because he had failed to raise any issue of merit. Upon review of 

the record, including the transcript of the hearing held on December 17, 2008, we agreed

that Shemonsky raised no issue of arguable merit and summarily affirmed the judgment 

of the District Court. See In re: Shemonsky, 331 Fed. Appx. 104 (3d Cir. 2009).

At issue in the instant appeal, Shemonsky filed a motion in the district court, 

which he based on Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. Pro. In an order entered on January 6, 2011, 

the District Court denied the motion. The court noted that Shemonsky was essentially 

arguing that United States Bankruptcy Judge John J. Thomas could not preside over the 

underlying bankruptcy case because he is not a judge appointed under Article III of the 

United States Constitution. The District Court Judge denied Shemonsky’s Rule 60 

motion, noting that Judge Thomas was appointed pursuant to Article I of the United 

States Constitution, and, as such, he has full authority and jurisdiction to preside over 

bankruptcy matters, including Shemonsky’s bankruptcy matter. 

Shemonsky filed a timely motion for reconsideration, in which he argued that 

federal district judges are “tyrannical,” and Judge Thomas is discriminated against 

because he does not get equal pay. The District Court denied the motion for 

reconsideration in an order entered on January 12, 2011, observing that Shemonsky was 

wasting the court’s time.

Shemonsky appeals. Our Clerk advised him that we might act summarily to 

dispose of the appeal. In addition to submitting numerous documents in support of his 

appeal, Shemonsky has filed several motions, all of them plainly lacking in merit.
3

Generally, the District Court has jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court’s 

orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and we have jurisdiction to review the District 

Court’s order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and § 1291. We will summarily affirm the order 

of the District Court because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, Third 

Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. We are in complete agreement with the District 

Court’s analysis. As the District Court concluded, Congress, in reliance upon power 

expressly granted to it by Article I, § 8, cl. 4 of the United States Constitution, has 

authorized bankruptcy judges like Judge Thomas to conduct core bankruptcy 

proceedings. Bankruptcy judges do not have Article III status, Northern Pipeline Constr. 

Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 61 (1982), and Judge Thomas need not be 

an Article III judge to preside over Shemonsky’s cases. See generally Phar-Mor, Inc. v. 

Coopers & Lybrand, 22 F.3d 1228, 1234-35 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing the distinction 

between core and non-core proceedings).

For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the orders of the District 

Court denying Shemonsky’s “Rule 60(b)” motion and motion for reconsideration. 

Shemonsky’s motions on appeal to supplement the record under Fed. R. App. Pro. 10(e); 

to seize, etc.; and to transfer his bankruptcy cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

all are denied.