PAUL BESTE V. PATRICK BULMER, No. 15-15612 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL DEN BESTE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-15612 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01893-TLN v. MEMORANDUM* PATRICK BULMER, AKA California Receivership Services, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Paul Den Beste appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying a motion for rehearing of its 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 the district court’s denial of a motion for rehearing. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Den Beste’s motion for rehearing because Den Beste did not show that the district court erred in dismissing his appeal for failure to prosecute after it provided multiple opportunities to comply with its orders and warned Den Beste that a failure to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2); Fowler, 394 F.3d at 1214-15 (a motion for rehearing must state with particularity each point of law or fact the court overlooked); see also Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (“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.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15612

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.