SIDNEY SCARLETT V. DEVIN DERHAM-BURK, No. 17-15799 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, ______________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15799 D.C. No. 5:16-cv-05371-LHK SIDNEY T. SCARLETT, Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. DEVIN DERHAM-BURK, Chapter 13 trustee, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Sidney T. Scarlett appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of extension of time); Moneymaker v. CoBEN (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scarlett a further extension of time and dismissing Scarlett’s bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute after it granted him two extensions of time to file the opening brief and warned that failure to file an opening brief by the extended due date would result in dismissal of his appeal. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451-56 (discussing factors for district court to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Scarlett’s motion for reconsideration because Scarlett failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15799
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.
