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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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,
Appellee.
No. 22-55771
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02973-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
* 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 3 --

2 22-55771
his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d).1 We review for an abuse of discretion. Fitzsimmons v. Nolden
(In re Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Moore’s appeal
for failure to prosecute because Moore failed to file all of the documents required
by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009, despite the district court’s multiple
warnings that failure to do so could result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8003(a)(2) (an appellant’s failure to take steps to prosecute a bankruptcy appeal
may be grounds for dismissal); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640, 642-43
(9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for
failure to prosecute; a district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a
definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261
(9th Cir. 1992) (this court may review the record independently if the district court
does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the factors).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore’s request to
reinstate his appeal because Moore failed to establish grounds for such relief. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2); United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d
1 We reject as meritless appellee’s contention that Moore’s appeal is untimely as to
the district court’s order dismissing Moore’s appeal for failure to prosecute.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-55771
1208, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review).
Moore’s motion to file a corrected reply brief, corrected reply appendix, and
corrected request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 21) is granted. The Clerk
will file the corrected reply brief received at Docket Entry No. 22. The corrected
reply appendix and corrected request for judicial notice were previously filed.
All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --