Unpublished Disposition, 920 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1989)Annotate this Case
Margot Sierra HOLCOMB, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants-Appellees.In re VIP ESTATES, INC. Debtor.Margot Sieraa HOLCOMB, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, et al., Appellees.
No. 89-15021, 89-15495.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 1990.* Decided Dec. 11, 1990.
Before TANG, FLETCHER and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
These two cases have been consolidated on appeal: one is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) (89-15495), the other from the district court (89-15021).
We deal first with the appeal from the BAP. The BAP first, on December 22, 1980, entered a conditional order of dismissal of the appeal from the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the action, wherein it directed the appellant to complete the record as required by the Bankruptcy Rules within twenty days. Subsequently, on February 1, 1989, the BAP dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to complete the record, apparently asserting that the appeal was to this court, not the BAP. We affirm that dismissal.
Were we to reach the merits of the bankruptcy court's dismissal, we would affirm the dismissal on the merits for essentially the reasons set forth by the bankruptcy court: neither the plaintiff or any of the defendants in the bankruptcy court case, an adversary proceeding, is a debtor of the estate and no assets of the estate are involved, nor would the result have any effect on the estate. The proceeding does not arise under Title II of the United States Code. The bankruptcy court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The district court appeal is from an order of dismissal dismissing all defendants either for failure to state a claim (the United States of America against which no allegations are made) or because of immunities that shield the defendants from liability (all other defendants). As to criminal charges against the defendants, pressed in the complaint, the district court held that the plaintiff, a private citizen, could not bring criminal charges in a civil action.
We affirm the dismissals in both 89-15495 and 89-15021.