Court Opinion

ID: 9895718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 16:01:26.91511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:23.681124
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20047        Document: 00516960071             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                     November 7, 2023
                                      No. 23-20047                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                           Clerk

   In the Matter of Porter Development Partners, L.L.C.,

                                                                                     Debtor,

   Wayne M. English,

                                                                                Appellant,

                                            versus

   Lowell T. Cage, Trustee

                                                                                 Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-1804
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Proceeding pro se, Wayne English filed his notice of appeal of the
   district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20047       Document: 00516960071             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                        No. 23-20047

   judgment against him. It was stamped as filed one day late. Another panel
   dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction because of the late filing.
           English also filed a motion for an extension of time to file his notice of
   appeal. The district court denied that motion. English now appeals that
   order, arguing that his notice of appeal of the summary judgment order
   arrived before the filing deadline, but the clerk could not find it for several
   days, and thus he should not be penalized for the late filing. Because English
   has not shown that his notice of appeal reached the clerk before the deadline,
   we AFFIRM.
                                              I
           This appeal arises out of bankruptcy proceedings for the bankruptcy
   estate of Porter Development Partners LLC. Wayne English is an investor in
   the bankrupt entity, Wallace Bajjali Investment Fund II L.P. The Wallace
   Bajjali debtors include Porter Development Partners LLC and several other
   entities. The bankruptcy court ordered joint administration of the debtors’
   cases in Porter Development Partners LLC’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case.
           Proceeding pro se, English appealed the bankruptcy court’s order
   granting the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment to the district court.1
   The district court affirmed. English then moved for a new trial; rehearing;
   reconsideration; and to modify, correct, or reform the judgment. That
   motion was denied by the district court on March 10, 2022. English then
   sought to appeal to this court. His notice of appeal is stamped as filed on April
   12, 2022. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(1)(a), English had

           _____________________
           1
            James Colling was also a party to several of the motions described in the
   procedural history. However, he is not a party to this appeal, so his involvement in the
   procedural history is not further discussed.

                                                  2
Case: 23-20047         Document: 00516960071        Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 23-20047

   until April 11, 2022, to file his notice of appeal. Thus, his notice of appeal was
   not timely filed.
          On April 15, 2022, English moved for an extension of time to file his
   notice of appeal. He explained that he had timely mailed his notice of appeal
   and that the priority tracking report from the United States Postal Service
   (USPS) confirmed that it was delivered on April 9, 2022, two days before
   the deadline, but that for several days the clerk could not locate the notice of
   appeal. He attached as an exhibit USPS tracking information for an item,
   which showed that the item was delivered on April 9, 2022, to an address in
   Houston, Texas. The Trustee opposed English’s motion because the
   bankruptcy court had entered an agreed order requiring English to obtain
   approval from the bankruptcy court before filing any pleadings or appeals,
   and English had not shown that he had received permission to appeal.
          In August 2022, the Trustee filed a motion to reopen the civil action
   so that the district court could rule on the motion for extension of time,
   because the Fifth Circuit was waiting to process the appeal of the summary
   judgment order until the district court ruled on the motion for extension of
   time. The Trustee also informed the district court that the bankruptcy court
   had entered an order on an enforcement motion concluding that English had
   not appealed with the authorization of the bankruptcy court, as required by
   the agreed order.
          The district court then denied the motion for extension of time
   without explanation on December 1, 2022. It also denied the motion to
   reopen as moot because the motion for extension of time had been denied.
          This court then processed English’s appeal of the summary judgment
   order. Because English filed his notice of appeal one day late, the panel
   dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction on March 23, 2023. Through a
   motion for reconsideration and to amend the panel’s dismissal order, English

                                               3
Case: 23-20047         Document: 00516960071               Page: 4      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                          No. 23-20047

   raised his argument that his notice of appeal arrived before the deadline, but
   the clerk could not locate it until after the deadline. The panel denied the
   motion.2
           Before the district court, English also moved for a new trial; for
   rehearing; to modify, correct or reform the judgment; and for reconsideration
   of the denial of his motion for extension of time to file an appeal. The
   substance of this motion focused only on the denial for an extension of time.
   He argued that his notice of appeal was delivered before the deadline but that
   it was not filed until after the deadline because the clerk was unable to locate
   it. The district court denied this motion without explanation. English timely
   appealed, stating that “[n]otice is hereby given that Wayne English’s [sic] is
   appealing the issue that his Notice of Appeal was untimely as the priority mail
   USPS tracking report confirmed delivery on April 9, 2022.”
                                                II
           We review a district court’s denial of a motion for extension of time
   for an abuse of discretion. Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787, 793 (5th
   Cir. 1990); see also L.A. Pub. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. Nelson, 17 F.4th 521, 524
   (5th Cir. 2021).
                                                III
                                                A
           English now identifies four issues on appeal: (1) that the proofs of
   claims he filed with the bankruptcy court were timely filed; (2) that he, as a

           _____________________
           2
             “We may take judicial notice of prior court proceedings as matters of public
   record.” In re Deepwater Horizon, 934 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing ITT Rayonier
   Inc. v. United States, 651 F.2d 343, 345 n.2 (5th Cir. 1981) (“A court may . . . take judicial
   notice of its own records or those of inferior courts.”)). Because the ruling on English’s
   motion is one of our own records, we take judicial notice of it here.

                                                      4
Case: 23-20047         Document: 00516960071               Page: 5      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                          No. 23-20047

   limited partner of the Wallace Bajjali Investment Fund II, is an owner of the
   Porter, Murphy, and WB Real Estate Holding partnerships as a result of the
   merger of the partnerships; (3) that limited partners in a limited liability
   company are given creditor status under the Texas Business Organizations
   Code, Chapter 101; and (4) the Trustee’s motion for summary judgment was
   insufficient on several counts. The Trustee contends that there is only one
   issue that needs to be addressed on appeal: whether the district court’s denial
   of English’s motion for extension of time to appeal was an abuse of discretion.
           We agree with the Trustee. The merits of English’s case are not
   reviewable on appeal of a denial of a motion to extend time to file a notice of
   appeal. English argues on appeal that his notice of appeal should be
   considered timely filed, even though he does not identify it as an issue.
   Nonetheless, “we liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less
   stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties represented by
   counsel.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
   Thus, we will consider only whether the district court’s denial of English’s
   motion for extension of time to appeal was an abuse of discretion.3

           _____________________
           3
             The fact that a prior panel faced English’s argument regarding the late filing of
   his notice of appeal on a motion for reconsideration does not prevent our consideration of
   this appeal. The law-of-the-case doctrine establishes that “‘when a court decides’ an issue,
   ‘that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages of the same
   case.’” Matter of AKD Investments, 79 F.4th 487, 491 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Arizona v.
   California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983)). But it only applies “to issues that were actually
   decided.” Id. (quoting Alpha/Omega Ins. Servs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 272 F.3d 276,
   279 (5th Cir. 2001)). English’s prior appeal of the district court’s order affirming the grant
   of summary judgment from the bankruptcy court was dismissed because the notice of
   appeal was filed too late. The panel’s denial of English’s motion to reconsider did not
   decide whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted.

                                                     5
Case: 23-20047         Document: 00516960071               Page: 6      Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                          No. 23-20047

                                                B
            Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) allows the district
   court to extend the time to file a notice of appeal “regardless of whether [the
   party’s] motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed
   by this Rule 4(a) expires,” as long as “that party shows excusable neglect or
   good cause.” Because the motion for an extension of time to file the notice of
   appeal was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Rule 4(a), the only
   question is whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the
   motion due to a lack of excusable neglect or good cause. English does not
   contend that his delay was the result of neglect. Rather, he argues that he did
   everything he could to comply with the deadline, and that he did comply.
   Consequently, we only consider good cause. 4
            The 1998 amendments to Rule 4(a)(5) added “good cause” as a
   reason a district court is permitted to extend the time for filing a notice of
   appeal. The advisory committee notes explain, “The rule gives the district
   court discretion to grant extensions for good cause whenever the court
   believes it appropriate to do so provided that the extended period does not
   exceed 30 days after the expiration of the time otherwise prescribed by Rule
   4(b).”
            English makes two arguments as to why his notice of appeal should be
   considered timely filed: (1) “that a filing is completed when it is first placed
   in the actual or constructive possession of the clerk” and (2) that delays
   between a notice being received and filed will not prevent a notice of appeal
   from being considered timely filed.

            _____________________
            4
             The district court did not explicitly deny the motion due to lack of good cause or
   for any other reason. The district court gave no explanation for its initial ruling or for its
   denial of English’s motion for reconsideration.

                                                     6
Case: 23-20047      Document: 00516960071           Page: 7    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 23-20047

           In support of his first argument, he cites cases concluding that
   “papers and pleadings including the original complaint are considered filed
   when they are placed in the possession of the clerk of the court” and contends
   that this standard should apply to his filing of his notice of appeal. In re
   Godfrey, 102 B.R. 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R.
   Co., 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also In re Brown, 311 B.R. 721, 725–
   28 (W.D. Pa. 2004) (holding that a complaint is constructively filed when it
   is first placed in the custody or possession of the clerk, and the time of
   constructive filing controls if different from formal filing). Because his notice
   of appeal was delivered on April 9, 2022, he argues, it should be found to be
   constructively in the possession of the clerk and thus considered filed at that
   time.
           Even if our circuit had this rule, English has not shown that his notice
   of appeal was placed in the custody or possession of the clerk on April 9,
   2022. The tracking information provided by English does not show what item
   was mailed, when it was mailed, or to what address the item was delivered.
   Further, English certified in his notice of appeal that “on April 6, 2022, a true
   and correct copy of this pleading was sent via fax, mail, e-mail, electronic
   service, or hand delivery to all counsel of record,” but the Trustee stated to
   the contrary that he was not served with the notice of appeal until “on or
   about April 14, 2022” by ECF notice. Thus, English has not shown the clerk
   was in possession of his notice of appeal on April 9, 2022.
           English relies on several cases, including Deloney v. Estelle, 661 F.2d
   1061 (5th Cir. 1981), in support of his second argument that he should not be
   accountable for the delay between receipt and filing. In Deloney, a pro se
   plaintiff filed a notice of appeal ten days late, but his notice of appeal was
   “sign[ed] and notariz[ed] 5 days after judgment against him was entered”
   and had a “‘Received’ stamp of the district court clerk on the reverse side
   . . . dated 14 days after the final judgment.” Id. at 1062. There was no

                                              7
Case: 23-20047      Document: 00516960071           Page: 8    Date Filed: 11/07/2023

                                     No. 23-20047

   explanation for the delay between the notice being received and filed. Id. In
   that context, we said that “[b]ecause an appellant has no control over delays
   between receipt and filing, a notice of appeal is timely filed if received by the
   district court within the applicable period specified in Rule 4.” Id. at 1063.
   We thus found the notice of appeal to satisfy the 30-day filing requirement.
   Id. English argues that his notice of appeal was likewise in the clerk’s control
   before the deadline and that the delay cannot be ascribed to him, so his notice
   of appeal should be found to have been timely filed.
          As discussed above, the tracking information alone does not show that
   English’s notice of appeal was delivered to the clerk before it was stamped as
   filed. In Deloney, it was clear that the notice of appeal had been received
   before it was marked as filed because it was signed, notarized, and stamped
   as received well before the deadline. There is no such evidence here.
          Because we cannot confirm what was delivered to the unknown
   address on April 9, 2022, or when the notice of appeal was served on
   opposing counsel, and because English filed his notice of appeal in violation
   of an agreed order in the bankruptcy court, we hold that the district court did
   not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an extension of time to file
   the notice of appeal.
          We therefore AFFIRM.

                                              8