In the Matter of: VINCENT TORRES v. the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: VINCENT TORRES,
Debtor,
VINCENT TORRES,
Appellant,
v.
THE SANTA YNEZ BAND OF
CHUMASH INDIANS,
Appellee.
No. 13-56066
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04513-MWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Vincent Torres appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order denying his request for sanctions against the Santa Ynez
Band of Chumash Indians. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We
review independently the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the
district court’s determinations. Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Sec. Corp. (In re Cossu),
410 F.3d 591, 595 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torres’s motion
for sanctions after concluding that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians did
not act in bad faith by filing a proof of claim in Torres’s bankruptcy proceedings.
See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 55 (1991) (standard of review);
Knupfer v. Lindblade (In re Dyer), 322 F.3d 1178, 1196 (9th Cir. 2003) (for a court
to use its inherent sanctioning power, there must be an explicit finding of bad faith
or willful misconduct).
AFFIRMED.
13-56066 2

-- 2 of 2 --