IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60742

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE L.L.C.,

Debtor

WARREN HAVENS,

Appellant

v.

MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE L.L.C.; CHOCTAW 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C.,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:13-CV-180

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Warren Havens, proceeding pro se, appeals two orders dismissing his 

bankruptcy appeals and denying rehearing. Because he has not alleged facts 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60742 Document: 00514769439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2018
No. 17-60742

2

sufficient to demonstrate standing, or shown that the district court erred in 

denying rehearing, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court.

I

Havens’s participation in the bankruptcy case below was based on his 

claims against the debtor, Maritime Communications/Land Mobile L.L.C. 

(Maritime), in a separate case in the District of New Jersey. Havens did not 

prevail on any claim in the New Jersey case.1 

Besides referring to the New Jersey case, Havens’s bankruptcy proof of 

claim also says that it may be based on his interest in “any legal and/or 

administrative proceedings.” Havens participated in proceedings before the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the validity and transfers 

of licenses held by Maritime. The FCC denied relief to Havens and also 

“bar[red] Mr. Havens and the Havens companies from future participation in 

this proceeding as a consequence of their contemptuous and disruptive 

conduct.” Maritime Commc’ns/Land Mobile, LLC, 2015 WL 1890837, at *1 

(Apr. 22, 2015) (barring participation); see Warren C. Havens, 32 F.C.C.R. 218, 

218 (2017) (denying substantive relief). 

When the bankruptcy court confirmed Maritime’s plan of reorganization, 

Havens appealed several bankruptcy orders to the district court. The district 

court consolidated Havens’s appeals into this case. It then granted a motion to 

dismiss the appeals because Havens lacked standing. The district court also 

denied Havens’s motion for rehearing. 

 

1 The district court dismissed or otherwise granted judgment against Havens’s claims 

in two opinions. Havens v. Mobex Network Servs., LLC, No. CIV. A. 11-993 KSH, 2011 WL 

6826104 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2011); Havens v. Mar. Commc’ns/Land Mobile, LLC, No. CIV. A. 

11-993 KSH, 2014 WL 4352300 (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2014). The Third Circuit affirmed both 

decisions. Havens v. Mobex Network Servs., LLC, 820 F.3d 80 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. 

––––, 137 S. Ct. 496 (2016).

 Case: 17-60742 Document: 00514769439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2018
No. 17-60742

3

II

Standing to appeal an order of the bankruptcy court “is an even more 

exacting standard than traditional constitutional standing.” In re Coho Energy 

Inc., 395 F.3d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 2004). “[T]he ‘person aggrieved’ test demands 

a higher causal nexus between act and injury; appellant must show that he 

was ‘directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order of the bankruptcy 

court’ in order to have standing to appeal.” Id. at 202–03 (quoting In re 

Fondiller, 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)).

Bankruptcy Rule 8022 does not provide a standard of decision for a 

motion for rehearing, but such a motion may be granted to correct a “mistaken 

use of facts or law” in the prior decision. In re Coleman, Civil Action No. 15-

569, 2015 WL 7101129, *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 13, 2015) (citing In re Hessco Indus., 

Inc., 295 B.R. 372, 375 (9th Cir. 2003)).

III

Havens addresses a variety of peripheral issues in his brief but does not 

identify facts sufficient to demonstrate his standing. He says that the district 

court improperly held that he lacked standing to participate in FCC 

administrative proceedings. This mischaracterizes the decision. The district 

court did not purport to resolve Havens’s standing before the agency. Rather,

it analyzed his standing to appeal the bankruptcy orders. After his claims 

failed in the New Jersey case, he had no asserted interest in the bankruptcy. 

And even generously construing Havens’s arguments as a challenge to the 

treatment of his interests in FCC proceedings, he misses the mark. The district 

court correctly noted that the FCC had denied relief to Havens, leaving him 

with no interest in the licenses either.

Because he had no remaining claim against Maritime, Havens was not 

“directly and adversely affected pecuniarily by the order of the bankruptcy 

 Case: 17-60742 Document: 00514769439 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2018
No. 17-60742

4

court,” as required for standing to appeal. Coho Energy, 395 F.3d at 203 

(quoting Fondiller, 707 F.2d at 443). And the district court did not err in 

denying Havens’s motion for rehearing. The motion essentially reiterated his

original arguments and did not identify mistaken use of facts or law in the 

prior order.

The court has considered Havens’s other arguments and found them to 

be without merit. The orders of the district court are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-60742 Document: 00514769439 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/20/2018