Case Name: IN RE: Riordan J. ZAVALA, also known as Riordan J. Zavala, Esq. also known as Law Offices of Riordan J. Zavala, Debtor. Riordan J. Zavala, Appellant, v. George A. Sharp, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-30
Citations: 699 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 16-55561
Parties: IN RE: Riordan J. ZAVALA, also known as Riordan J. Zavala, Esq. also known as Law Offices of Riordan J. Zavala, Debtor. Riordan J. Zavala, Appellant, v. George A. Sharp, Appellee.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 751–751

Head Matter:
IN RE: Riordan J. ZAVALA, also known as Riordan J. Zavala, Esq. also known as Law Offices of Riordan J. Zavala, Debtor. Riordan J. Zavala, Appellant, v. George A. Sharp, Appellee.
No. 16-55561
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted October 23, 2017
Filed October 30, 2017
Riordan J. Zavala, Pro Se
George A. Sharp, Pro Se
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Chapter 7 debtor Riordan J. Zavala appeals pro se. from the district court's order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zavala's appeal for failure to prosecute,' after granting two extensions of time to file an opening brief, warning that no further extensions would be granted, and providing an opportunity for Zavala to respond to an order to show cause prior to dismissal. See id. at 1451-56 (discussing factors to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that "[a] reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable" (citations omitted)); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4) (permitting district court to dismiss a bankruptcy appeal on its own motion, after notice, if an appellant fails to file a timely brief).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.