In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG v. Kimberly Martin-Bragg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG,
Debtor,
______________________________
IVAN RENE MOORE,
Appellant,
v.
KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG; GEORGE
BARBOUR; LAW OFFICES OF
THOMASINA REED, a California law
office business entity form unknown;
THOMASINA REED,
Appellees.
No. 22-55914
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-03451-DMG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
* 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). Moore’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
JAN 19 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55914
Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his request for an evidentiary
hearing or discovery. We must consider sua sponte whether an order is final and
appealable. Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co., Inc. (In re Landmark Fence Co.,
Inc.), 801 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2015). We dismiss.
We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order
was not final and, unlike the district court, this court lacks discretion to consider
interlocutory appeals. See SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.), 676
F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (providing that a bankruptcy court order is final if it
“resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and . . . finally determines the
discrete issue to which it is addressed” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of
Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “[i]t is
within the discretion of the district court . . . to hear interlocutory appeals” from
bankruptcy courts but “courts of appeals only have jurisdiction to review the ‘final
decisions, judgments, orders and decrees’ entered by . . . district courts” (citing 28
U.S.C. § 158(d)).
All pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --