Opinion ID: 4469326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Mandamus Petition

Text: After filing his second NOA to the BAP then dismissing his appeals, Pilcher filed several additional motions or other pleadings in the bankruptcy court. The 4 bankruptcy court denied two of these motions: his motion for stay pending appeal (because there was no appeal pending), and his emergency motion for an order of contempt of court (because the automatic stay in Pilcher’s bankruptcy had terminated when it denied him a discharge). Pilcher’s other motions remained pending in bankruptcy court. Pilcher then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus with the BAP. He asked the BAP to compel the bankruptcy court to (1) certify its judgments entered on June 29, 2018, as final and appealable; (2) rule on his pending motions; and (3) stay the order denying his discharge and all collection activities. The BAP dismissed the mandamus petition. It declined to reach the question of whether it had jurisdiction to hear and issue writs under the All Writs Act. Instead, it ruled that because Pilcher had “requested the writ as a substituted means of appeal and because that appeal would be untimely, [it] lack[ed] jurisdiction to hear the Petition.” R. at 25. Addressing Pilcher’s request to compel the bankruptcy court to enter a final order denying his motions for summary judgment from which he could appeal, the BAP opined that the bankruptcy court had already entered such a final, appealable order. It stated “the bankruptcy court’s denial of [Pilcher’s] discharge . . . rendered all other claims moot and [therefore] rendered the order denying [his] motions for summary judgment final.” Id. at 26 n.7. But Pilcher “did not respond to address finality before [moving] the [BAP] to dismiss his case.” Id. Thus, “because appellate review of the Orders was available to [Pilcher] and a writ of mandamus 5 cannot substitute for a timely appeal” the BAP concluded it did “not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal labeled as a mandamus petition.” Id. at 26. Addressing his further requests to compel the bankruptcy court to rule on his pending motions and to stay collection activity, the BAP concluded he could have sought such relief in No. WY-18-075 had he not dismissed that appeal. See id. at 26 n.9. Thus the BAP appears to have concluded these requests for mandamus relief would also operate as an impermissible substitute for an appeal.