In re: BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr. v. Arlene Stevens

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr.,
Debtor.
______________________________
BOOKER THEODORE WADE, Jr., AKA
Booker T. Wade, Jr.,
Appellant,
v.
ARLENE STEVENS,
Appellee.
No. 15-60083
BAP No. 14-1562
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Jury, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Booker Theodore Wade, Jr., appeals pro se from a judgment of the
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order
overruling Wade’s objection to the secured claim of Forest Villa Homeowners
Association. 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 properly denied Wade’s claim objection because
Wade lacks standing to prosecute matters on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. See
Heath v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs., Inc. (In re Heath), 331 B.R. 424, 429
(9th Cir. BAP 2005) (chapter 7 debtors lack standing to object to claims when the
bankruptcy estate is insolvent).
The bankruptcy court properly found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate
Wade’s claim objection because any adjudication would not have impacted the
bankruptcy estate. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (c)(1) (bankruptcy court jurisdiction
is limited to “cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or
arising in a case under title 11” as well as non-core proceedings that are “otherwise
related to a case under title 11”); see also Fietz v. Great W. Savings (In re Fietz),
852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir. 1988) (the “related to” test is “whether the outcome of
15-60083 2

-- 2 of 3 --

the proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered
in bankruptcy” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Wade’s contentions that the bankruptcy court
violated due process.
We do not consider Wade’s contentions related to a separate appeal.
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.
15-60083 3

-- 3 of 3 --