Case Name: In re: James M. KINCAID; In re: Estrella Kincaid, Debtors, Estrella Kincaid, Appellant, v. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-29
Citations: 175 F. App'x 800
Docket Number: No. 05-15039
Parties: In re: James M. KINCAID; In re: Estrella Kincaid, Debtors, Estrella Kincaid, Appellant, v. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 344
Pages: 800–801

Head Matter:
In re: James M. KINCAID; In re: Estrella Kincaid, Debtors, Estrella Kincaid, Appellant, v. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Appellees.
No. 05-15039.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Filed March 29, 2006.
Estrella Kincaid, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Jan P. Johnson, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Chapter 13 debtor Estrella Kincaid appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's order denying her motion for a writ of mandamus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion, Vizcaino v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Western Dist. of Wash., 173 F.3d 713, 719 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel did not abuse its discretion in concluding that an extraordinary writ was inappropriate where, as here, direct appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision was available. See DeGeorge v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Central Dist. of Calif., 219 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.