N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In the M atte r of: KENYON K. KELLEY, De

btor, JAM ES J. O’ H AGAN, Appe lla

nt, v. NOR THW EST FARM C REDIT SER VIC ES, FLC A, Appe lle e . No. 13-35324 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05446-B HS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s J. O’ Ha ga

n a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt 

# FIL ED DEC 4 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).dism issing his a ppe a l from

orde rs of the ba

nkruptc y c ourt de c la

ring him to be a ve xatious litiga

nt a nd im posing sa nc tions. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 158(d). W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion a

distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l for nonc om plia nc e with non-jurisdictiona l ba nkruptc y rule s. Ehre nbe rg v . C al. State Univ . (In reBe ac hport Entm’t) , 396 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th C ir. 2005). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing O’ Ha ga

n’ s a ppe a l be c a

use , de spitean orde r to show c a use from the distric t c ourt a s to why it should not dism

i ss for fa ilure to pe rfe c t the a ppe a l, O’ Ha g an fa i le d to pe rfe c t the re c o rd for ove r nine m onths a fte r filing thea p pe a l. Se eid. at 1087 (sta t ing fa c tors to c o nside r prior to dism

issa l of ba

nkruptc y a ppe a l for non-c om

plia nc e with a proc e d ura l rule ). To the e xte nt tha

t O’ Ha ga n c ha l le nge s the de nia l of his motion for re c o nside ration, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion be c a

use O’ H a ga

n fa ile d to e sta

blish a ba sis for re c onside ration. Se eW .D. W a sh. R . 7(h)(1) (se tting forth grounds for re c o nside ration); Hinton v . Pac . Ente rs. , 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th C ir. 1993) (re vie wing a

pplic ation of loc a l rule s for a buse of disc re tion); se ealso Sc h. Dist. N

o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty . , Or., v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth fa c tors for re c o nside ration under Fe d.R .C iv.P. 59(e )). 1 3 - 3 5 3 2 4 2W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

by the re c o rd O’ Ha ga

n’ s c onte ntion tha

t the distric t c o urt judgefa ile d to c o nside r a m o tion to re c use him se l f. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in theope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). O’ Ha ga n’ s m otion to c onsolida

t e , file d on August 22, 2013, is de nie d a s m oot. O’ Ha ga

n’ s m otion to sta

y furthe r a c tion, file d

on Se pte m

be r 6, 2013, se e k ing to supplem e nt the re c ord, is de nie d . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 5 3 2 4 3