In re: BRUCE CHADBOURNE v. WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for MFRA Trust 2014-2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
Debtor,
------------------------------
BRUCE CHADBOURNE,
Appellant,
v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for MFRA Trust
2014-2,
Appellee.
No. 20-60054
BAP No. 19-1218
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Gan, Faris, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, 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).
FILED
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-60054
Bruce Chadbourne appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) order dismissing Chadbourne’s appeal for failure to provide a transcript
of the bankruptcy court’s stay relief hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re
Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Chadbourne’s appeal for
failure to file a transcript of the stay relief hearing because the BAP determined
that the transcript was necessary to perform an informed review and provided
Chadbourne multiple extensions of time and warnings that failure to file a
transcript would result in dismissal of the appeal. See id. at 1189-91; see also 9th
Cir. Bankr. App. Panel R. 8009-1 (“The excerpts of record shall include the
transcripts necessary for adequate review in light of the standard of review to be
applied to the issues before the Panel.”); Clinton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co.
(In re Clinton), 449 B.R. 79, 83 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (pro se litigants in bankruptcy
proceedings are not excused from compliance with procedural rules).
Because we affirm the BAP’s order dismissing the appeal, we do not
consider Chadbourne’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s decisions. See In re
Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190.
Chadbourne’s motion for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-60054
and a reply brief (Docket Entry No. 36) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --