Odums v. Nancy T Sunshine Dba Kings County New York Supreme Court Clerk et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARVIN ODUMS, III,
Appellant,
v.
Nancy T Sunshine Dba Kings County New
York Supreme Court Clerk,
Appellee.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-05233 (HG)
HECTOR GONZALEZ, United States District Judge:
This appeal is one in a series of actions that pro se Debtor-Appellant Marvin Odums III
has filed over the past seven years concerning the foreclosure of property located at 502 Van
Buren Street in Brooklyn. The instant appeal concerns an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court
on August 26, 2025, dismissing Mr. Odum’s adversary proceeding against Appellee Nancy T.
Sunshine, the Kings County New York Supreme Court Clerk. See ECF No. 1 at 2 (Notice of
Appeal); ECF No. 1-1 at 2 (Transmittal of Record).1 For the reasons explained below, the Court
finds that it is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
After nine years in a prolonged foreclosure action, on March 19, 2018, the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Kings County, entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the
property. See Wells Fargo, NA. v. Marvin Odums III a/k/a Marvin Odums, Index No. 18711/09
(the “Foreclosure Action”). During the pendency of the Foreclosure Action and continuing over
1 	Unless otherwise indicated, when quoting cases and court filings, the Court omits all
internal quotation marks, alteration marks, emphases, footnotes, and citations. The Court refers
to the pages assigned by the Electronic Case Files system (“ECF”).
Case 1:25-cv-05233-HG Document 4 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

2
seven years after the state court’s judgment, Mr. Odums filed numerous actions in federal court
related to this property: six voluntary petitions in bankruptcy court under Chapter 13 and/or
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code;2 three district court actions;3 one adversary proceeding in
bankruptcy court;4 and three appeals.5
In the instant matter, Mr. Odums appeals a bankruptcy court order dismissing Charles
Scharf from the adversary proceeding. See Odums 3rd v. Charles W. Scharf Dba President of
Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 25-ap-1010, ECF No. 28 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., Aug. 26, 2025).
Bankruptcy Judge Lord issued the order on August 26, 2025, and Mr. Odums appealed 22 days
later, on September 17, 2025. See ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Because Mr. Odums did not file his appeal
within two weeks, the Court ordered Mr. Odums to show cause on or before November 11, 2025,
why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of his
2 	See In re Odums, 24-bk-42821 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed July 8, 2024, ongoing); In re
Odums, 23-bk-44581 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 12, 2023, dismissed Feb. 16, 2024); In re
Odums, 23-bk-40107 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 13, 2023, dismissed Mar. 10, 2023); In re
Odums, 19-bk-40829 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 11, 2019, discharged Apr. 28, 2023); In re
Odums, 12-bk-45153 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed July 17, 2012, dismissed Aug. 21, 2012); In re
Odums, 12-bk-40766 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 3, 2012, dismissed Aug. 29, 2012).
3 	See Odums v. Sunshine et al., 19-cv-7325, ECF No. 4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2020)
(voluntarily withdrawing case seeking to challenge foreclosure of property located at 502 Van
Buren Street); Odums v. Stumpf, et al., 19-cv-6815, ECF No. 7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2019)
(dismissing challenge to foreclosure of property located at 502 Van Buren Street); Odums v.
Bayne, et al., 10-cv-3450, ECF No. 33 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2011) (granting summary judgment in
favor of defendants in case seeking to challenge foreclosure of property located at 502 Van
Buren Street).
4 	See Odums 3rd v. Charles W. Scharf Dba President of Wells Fargo Bank, et al., 25-ap-
1010 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y., filed Jan. 28, 2025, dismissed Aug. 26, 2025).
5 	See Odums v. Scharf, 25-cv-5433 (E.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 29, 2025); Odums v. Nancy T.
Sunshine Dba Kings County New York Supreme Court Clerk et al., 25-cv-5233 (E.D.N.Y., filed
Sept. 18, 2025); Odums v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 20-cv-1100, 2021 WL 918323 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.
10, 2021) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
Case 1:25-cv-05233-HG Document 4 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

3
failure to timely file the appeal. See October 21, 2025, Text Order. Without explanation,
Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause.6
DISCUSSION
I. 	Lack of Jurisdiction
A notice of appeal from a bankruptcy order generally “must be filed with the bankruptcy
clerk within 14 days after the judgment, order, or decree to be appealed is entered.” Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 8002(a). “The time limitations in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) are jurisdictional,
regardless of a party’s pro se status.” In re Sterling, 690 F. App’x 747 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing In
re Siemon, 421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005)). “Thus, in the absence of a timely notice of appeal
in the district court, a district court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal, regardless of
whether the appellant can demonstrate ‘excusable neglect.’” Id. Here, the record reflects that
Mr. Odums did not file his notice of appeal until 22 days after the bankruptcy court’s order. This
6 	Instead, Mr. Odums requested that the Court accept his appeal as timely or grant him
permission to file a motion nunc pro tunc pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(d), and allow his
appeal to proceed on the merits. See ECF No. 3. Setting aside that he failed to address the
central issue in the Court’s Order to Show Cause and asked the Court to essentially ignore Rule
8002(a), Mr. Odums’s request for permission to move for a Rule 8002(d) extension is frivolous.
Rule 8002(d) is clear that the bankruptcy court, not the district court, has the authority to grant an
extension if a party shows excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Bank. P. 8002(d); In re Amelio,
No. 20-cv-3080, 2020 WL 7028957, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020) (“Rule 8002(d)(1),
however, expressly states that it is the bankruptcy court which may grant the extension.”).
Unless a party obtains such an extension from the bankruptcy court before appealing in district
court, the district court has no jurisdiction. See, e.g., Pynn v. Rupp Pfalzgraf LLC, No. 23-cv-
835, 2023 WL 7195085, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2023) (“When a party fails to timely appeal an
order of the bankruptcy court, the district court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over the
appeal not only lacks the power to extend the time, but it also lacks any jurisdiction over the
appeal altogether.”). And here, the bankruptcy court has already denied Mr. Odums’s request for
an extension of time to appeal. See Odums 3rd v. Charles W. Scharf Dba President of Wells
Fargo Bank, et al., 25-ap-1010, October 30, 2025, Text Order (denying motion, ECF No. 33).
Case 1:25-cv-05233-HG Document 4 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

4
exceeds the 14-day time limit. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). Consequently, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal.
II. 	Warning About Frequent Frivolous Filing
In addition to the cases Mr. Odums has filed related to the foreclosure of property located
at 502 Van Buren Street, he has also filed multiple cases challenging foreclosure actions brought
against other properties he owned.7 Each of these actions was dismissed as meritless. Indeed,
other judges in this District have explicitly concluded that at least some of Mr. Odums’s cases
were brought in bad faith. See, e.g., Odums v. Bayne, et al., 10-cv-3450, ECF No. 33 (E.D.N.Y.
July 29, 2011) (concluding that Mr. Odums filed the case “for delay and to harass defendants”);
In re Odums, 24-bk-42821, ECF No. 37 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025) (determining that Mr.
Odums filed his bankruptcy petition as “part of a scheme to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors
that has involved multiple bankruptcy filings by the Debtor and affecting the Property” and
ordering that all future bankruptcy filings by Mr. Odums within the next two years shall not stay
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s enforcement of its rights in and to 502 Van Buren Street); Odums v.
New York City Dep’t of Bldgs., No. 09-cv-1145, 2009 WL 2905761, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 9,
2009) (dismissing case and granting costs and disbursements to defendants because “[t]here are
limits to how much pro se plaintiffs can be permitted to burden government and its officials”).
The federal courts have limited resources. Frequent frivolous filings work to diminish
the ability of the courts to manage their dockets for the efficient administration of justice. “The
7 	See, e.g., Odums v. Sunshine, No. 18-cv-6292, 2020 WL 2542441 (E.D.N.Y. May 19,
2020) (dismissing challenge to foreclosure of property located at 302 Malcolm X Boulevard);
Odums v. Greenpoint Mortg. Funding Inc., No. 16-cv-6220, 2019 WL 13552159, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2019) (same), aff’d, 831 F. App’x 32 (2d Cir. 2020); Odums v. New York
City Dep’t of Bldgs., No. 09-cv-01145, 2009 WL 2905761 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2009) (dismissing
challenge to foreclosure of property located at 125 Jefferson Avenue).
Case 1:25-cv-05233-HG Document 4 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

5
district courts have the power and the obligation to protect the public and the efficient
administration of justice from individuals who have a history of litigation entailing vexation,
harassment and needless expense to other parties and an unnecessary burden on the courts and
their supporting personnel.” Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000).
Mr. Odums is hereby warned that the future filing of vexatious and frivolous litigation
may result in sanctions—including monetary sanctions or the imposition of an injunction
prohibiting him from filing, without first obtaining permission from the Court, further motions or
pleadings related to the foreclosure and sale of 502 Van Buren Street and/or filings seeking in
forma pauperis status. See, e.g., Torres v. Blackstone Grp., No. 23-138, 2023 WL 4850517, at
*1 (2d Cir. May 26, 2023) (finding that the imposition of sanctions, including a leave-to-file
sanction, might be appropriate in light of appellant’s litigation history and ordering appellant to
show cause why the sanction should not be imposed); In re Sassower, 20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir.
1994) (“With respect to civil litigation, courts have recognized that the normal opportunity to
initiate lawsuits may be limited once a litigant has demonstrated a clear pattern of abusing the
litigation process by filing vexatious and frivolous complaints.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Mr.
Odums is warned that the future filing of frivolous appeals, motions, or other papers may result
Case 1:25-cv-05233-HG Document 4 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

6
in sanctions, including leave-to-file or monetary sanctions. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close this case and mail a copy of this Order to pro se Appellant.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Hector Gonzalez
HECTOR GONZALEZ
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 14, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-05233-HG Document 4 Filed 11/14/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>