Case Name: In the Matter of Vincent TORRES, Debtor, Vincent Torres, Appellant, v. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-24
Citations: 599 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 13-56066
Parties: In the Matter of Vincent TORRES, Debtor, Vincent Torres, Appellant, v. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Vincent TORRES, Debtor, Vincent Torres, Appellant, v. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Appellee.
No. 13-56066.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 24, 2015.
Vincent Torres, Solvang, CA, pro se.
Melissa J. Fassett, Price, Postel & Par-ma LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, for Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vincent Torres appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order denying his request for sanctions against the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1): We review independently the bankruptcy court's decision without deference to the district court's determinations. Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Sec. Corp. (In re Cossu), 410 F.3d 591, 595 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres's motion for sanctions after concluding that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians did not act in bad faith by filing a proof of claim in Torres's bankruptcy proceedings. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (standard of review); Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir.2003) (for a court to use its inherent sanctioning power, there must be an explicit finding of bad faith or willful misconduct).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.