BOOKER WADE, JR. V. ARLENE STEVENS, No. 15-16922 (9th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr., No. 15-16922 Debtor. ______________________________ D.C. No. 5:14-cv-05628-LHK BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr., MEMORANDUM* Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARLENE STEVENS, Respondent-Appellee, and FRED HJELMESET; OFFICE OF THE US TRUSTEE/SJ, Trustees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing Wade’s bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute after Wade failed to file his opening brief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d), 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wade’s bankruptcy appeal after determining that the delay caused by Wade’s failure to file an opening brief was unreasonable and interfered with the district court’s ability to manage its docket. See id. (“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)). We reject as without merit Wade’s contentions that the district court exhibited bias in dismissing his appeal for failure prosecute. AFFIRMED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 15-16922

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.