Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Nielsen v. Price

17 F.3d 1276

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1994-02-23
Topic: general

insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | explaining that the Tenth Circuit has “has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” | explaining that the Tenth Circuit has “has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” | insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | stating that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants | insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | insisting that pro se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | explaining that pro se parties must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” (internal quotation marks omitted) | recognizing the Tenth Circuit’s insistence that pro se parties follow the same rules that govern represented parties | noting that pro se litigants must “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” | explaining that the Tenth Circuit has “has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants’ | noting that the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” | stating that “[t]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) | noting the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” | upholding dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to follow Bankruptcy Rules or timely file appeal brief where plaintiffs provided no explanation or excuse for noncompliance | upholding dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to follow Bankruptcy Rules or timely file appeal brief where plaintiffs provided no explanation or excuse for noncompliance | upholding dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to follow Bankruptcy Rules or timely file appeal brief where plaintiffs provided no explanation or excuse for noncompliance | upholding dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to follow Bankruptcy Rules or timely file appeal brief where plaintiffs provided no explanation or excuse for noncompliance | noting the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” | explaining pro se parties must comply with same procedural rules that govern all other litigants | explaining a pro se litigant must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants | noting Tenth Circuit has "repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants" | noting the Tenth Circuit has “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants” | affirming dismissal of appeal where appellant did not offer explanation for non-compliance with filing deadlines | insisting that pro 1 See D. Kan. R. 6.1(d)(2) (requiring a response to a dispositive motion to be filed within twenty-one days). se litigants follow procedural rules and citing various cases dismissing pro se cases for failure to comply with the rules | upholding dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to follow Bankruptcy 8 Rules or

Citator

Cited by: 204 opinions

NIELSEN v. PRICE,17 F.3d 1276(10th Cir. 1994)

ELWOOD L. NIELSEN AND LYNN NIELSEN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. LOIS PRICE,

TRUSTEE; LOIS L. NIELSEN ESTATE; GRANT THORNTON, APPOINTED TRUSTEE FOR

CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY CASE OF ELWOOD AND LYNN NIELSEN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,

DUNFORD WESTON; DUNFORD M. WESTON FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, INTERVENORS-APPELLEES.

No. 93-4072.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

February 23, 1994.

Elwood L. Nielsen and Lynn Nielsen, pro se.

James C. Jenkins of Jenkins and Burbank, Logan, Utah, for Defendant-Appellee Lois Price.

Harriet E. Styler and Kevin R. Anderson of Kruse, Landa Maycock, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellee Grant Thornton.Page 1277

Gregory Skabelund, Logan, Utah, for Intervenors-Appellees Dunford Weston and The Dunford Weston Family Partnership.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah.

Before TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,^fn*Senior District Judge.

TACHA, Circuit Judge.

[1] Plaintiffs, acting pro se, seek review of a district court order dismissing their appeal from an adverse judgment of the bankruptcy court.¹The district court concluded that, "[a]lthough [plaintiffs] filed a timely Notice of Appeal . . ., they have failed to comply with any of the other pertinent rules governing an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court." R.Vol. I tab 7, at 1. Specifically, the district court found plaintiffs had failed both to designate the record on appeal and to file a statement of the issues to be raised.SeeBankr.R. 8006. Plaintiffs also did not file a brief within the time designated by the district court.SeeBankr.R. 8009(a). Accordingly, the court exercised its discretionary authority under D.Utah R. 413 and Bankr.R. 8001 to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. R. Vol. I tab 7, at 3. We review this ruling for an abuse of discretion.Balaber-Strauss v. Reichard (In re Tampa ChainCo.),835 F.2d 54,55(2d Cir. 1987);International Bhd. ofTeamsters v. Braniff Airways, Inc. (In re Braniff Airways,Inc.),774 F.2d 1303,1305(5th Cir. 1985).

[2] This court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties "follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."Greenv. Dorrell,969 F.2d 915,917(10th Cir. 1992),cert. denied,___ U.S. ___,113 S.Ct. 1336,122 L.Ed.2d 720(1993);see Casperv. Commissioner,805 F.2d 902,906n. 3 (10th Cir. 1986);Bradenburg v. Beaman,632 F.2d 120,122(10th Cir. 1980),cert. denied,450 U.S. 984,101 S.Ct. 1522,67 L.Ed.2d 820(1981). Plaintiffs do not dispute the cited rule violations. Indeed, plaintiffs do not even attempt to present an explanation or excuse for their noncompliance.²Under the circumstances, we will not disturb the district court's determination that dismissal was warranted.See Balaber-Strauss,835 F.2d at 56(affirming district court's dismissal of appeal where appellants "argue[d] only the merits of their bankruptcy appeal, which of course are not before us, and d[id] not even address the failure-to-prosecute ground of the district court's dismissal of that appeal").

[3] The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is AFFIRMED. Appellants' ex parte motion to supplement the record with the file from appellant Elwood Leslie Nielsen's 1978 divorce proceeding is denied.Page 1278

Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. ↩
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. ↩
We note that, after filing their appeal with the district court, plaintiffs each commenced a second bankruptcy action, this time in the District of Nevada, and then invoked the existence of the latter actions to seek a stay, presumably under11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), to postpone their already tardy appellate responsibilities in this case. The district court properly rejected this gambit when it dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The § 362(a)(1) stay applies to actions that are "against the debtor" at their inception, regardless of the subsequent appellate posture of the case.See Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec.Corp.,894 F.2d 371,373(10th Cir. 1990). Moreover, we are concerned with the parties' alignment with respect to this particular adversary proceeding, not the underlying petition.O'Neill v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (In re ContinentalAirlines),928 F.2d 127,129(5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, § 362(a)(1) did not operate to stay this adversary proceeding commenced by the debtor-plaintiffs. ↩