MINON MILLER V. EDWARD GILLIAM, No. 16-60087 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: MINON MILLER, No. 16-60087 Debtor. ______________________________ BAP No. 15-1328 MINON MILLER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. EDWARD GILLIAM, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kirscher, Taylor, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Minon Miller appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order * 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). dismissing Miller’s bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miller’s chapter 7 petition because the record supports the bankruptcy court’s extensive findings of abuse and bad faith. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 707(b)(1), (b)(3)(A); Price v. U.S. Trustee (In re Price), 353 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004) (reviewing for clear error a bankruptcy court’s factual findings and for an abuse of discretion its decision to dismiss a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition). To the extent Miller argues that the bankruptcy court violated due process by considering any of Gilliam’s motions, we reject the contention because the record shows that the bankruptcy court provided Miller with adequate opportunity to respond and be heard. We reject as without merit Miller’s contentions that the bankruptcy judge should have recused himself. We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-60087

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.