NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re:

DEAN M. HARRIS,

Debtor.

BAP No. CC-21-1128-FLG

Bk. No. 2:21-bk-10152-ER

MEMORANDUM*

DEAN M. HARRIS,

Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL HOLMES,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Central District of California

Ernest M. Robles, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding

Before: FARIS, LAFFERTY,** and GAN, Bankruptcy Judges.

Rosalina Harris is a detective in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

Department. She had a long-running dispute with her neighbor, appellee 

Crystal Holmes. She abused her position as a law enforcement officer to 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication. Although it may be cited for 

whatever persuasive value it may have, see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1, it has no precedential 

value, see 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8024-1.

** Judge Taylor originally heard oral argument in this case. Before the Panel 

rendered its decision, Judge Lafferty replaced Judge Taylor on the Panel. Judge Lafferty 

has reviewed the oral argument, the parties’ filings, and the record on appeal. Judge 

Taylor did not participate in this decision.

FILED

APR 27 2022

SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK

U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL

OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
2

cause the wrongful arrest of Ms. Holmes. A district court jury found that 

Detective Harris had violated Ms. Holmes’ civil rights and awarded more 

than $3 million in damages, including $1.5 million of punitive damages. 

Ms. Holmes took steps in the district court to enforce her judgment 

against the Harrises’ property. Hoping to stymie this effort, Detective 

Harris and her husband, chapter 71 debtor Dean M. Harris, filed successive 

bankruptcy cases. The bankruptcy court dismissed Detective Harris’ case 

and granted relief from the automatic stay in Mr. Harris’ case to allow the 

district court to decide Ms. Holmes’ motion to sell the Harrises’ property.

The district court held that Mr. Harris was not entitled to the 

California homestead exemption and allowed the sale of the residence. 

Ms. Holmes was the successful bidder at auction. The Harrises appealed 

the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit. 

In the meantime, Mr. Harris also claimed a homestead exemption in 

his bankruptcy case. Ms. Holmes objected, arguing that the district court 

had already decided that Mr. Harris could not claim the homestead 

exemption. The bankruptcy court agreed. Mr. Harris appealed the 

bankruptcy court’s order to this Panel. 

The Ninth Circuit has recently affirmed the district court’s order. The 

Ninth Circuit ruled that the Harrises had failed to establish that they were 

entitled to any homestead exemption and rejected the Harrises’ arguments 

1 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the 

Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
3

based on § 522. Holmes v. Harris, Case No. 21-55330, 2022 WL 1198204 (9th 

Cir. Apr. 22, 2022).

The Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s order effectively 

rejects all of Mr. Harris’ objections to the bankruptcy court’s order. We 

could not grant any of the relief that Mr. Harris requests without 

contradicting the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Therefore, we AFFIRM.