Timothy Davies v. Diana S. Daugherty

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-6011
___________________________
In re: Timothy Michael Davies,
Debtor.
___________________________
Timothy Michael Davies,
Debtor – Appellant,
v.
Diana Spuhl Daugherty,
Trustee – Appellee.
__________________
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri
__________________
Submitted: May 22, 2023
Filed: June 8, 2023
__________________
Before RIDGWAY, HASTINGS, and NORTON, Bankruptcy Judges.
__________________

2
RIDGWAY, Bankruptcy Judge.
Debtor, Timothy Michael Davies, appeals the bankruptcy court’s1 order dated
December 15, 2022, which denied Debtor’s motion to impose the automatic stay
under 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(B). For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
On October 12, 2022, Debtor filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the United
States 	Bankruptcy 	Code. 	Debtor’s 	recent 	history 	of prior bankruptcy 	filings
implicated 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(4)(A)(i), which provides that—by operation of law—
the automatic stay shall not go into effect upon the filing of a bankruptcy case, if a
debtor had two or more bankruptcy cases that were pending but dismissed in the
previous year. Debtor timely filed a motion to impose the stay in accordance with §
362(c)(4)(B), which the standing trustee opposed and which the bankruptcy court
denied. Debtor timely appealed. While the appeal was pending, Debtor’s bankruptcy
case was dismissed on May 19, 2023.2
JURISDICTION
We have an independent duty to examine our jurisdiction. Marshall v.
McCarty (In re Marshall), 613 B.R. 458, 460 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2020). We have
previously stated that:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only hear actual
cases or controversies as defined under Article III of the Constitution.
Hickman v. State of Missouri, 144 F.3d 1141, 1143 (8th Cir. 1998).
When a case no longer presents an actual, ongoing case or controversy,
the case is moot and the federal court no longer has jurisdiction to hear
it. Id. “When circumstances change while an appeal is pending that
make 	it 	impossible 	for 	the 	court 	to 	grant 	‘any 	effectual 	relief
whatsoever’ to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed as
1 The Honorable Barry S. Schermer, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri. On December 20, 2022, due to Judge Schermer’s retirement,
Debtor’s bankruptcy case was reassigned to the Honorable Bonnie L. Clair, Chief
United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
2 No appeal was taken from the dismissal order.

3
moot.” Williams v. CitiFinancial Mortgage Co. (In re Williams), 256
B.R. 885, 8[95] (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001).
Tigue v. Sosne (In re Tigue), 363 B.R. 67, 70, 71 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2007). See also
FishDish, LLP,v. VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc. (In re VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc.), 6
F.4th 880, 883 (8th Cir. 2021) (under the so-called “equitable mootness” doctrine,
“equitable,” “prudential,” or “pragmatic” considerations may render an appeal of a
bankruptcy court decision moot even when the appeal is not constitutionally moot,
though district courts must apply a rigorous test in determining whether to invoke
the doctrine). In sum:
An appeal is considered constitutionally moot where there is no longer
any live case or controversy to be decided. In ordinary parlance, an
appeal 	is 	considered 	equitably 	moot 	and 	will 	be 	dismissed 	if
implementation of the judgment or order that is the subject of the appeal
renders it impossible or inequitable for the appellate court to give
effective relief to an appellant.
Feeney, Williamson, and Stepan, Bankruptcy Law Manual § 2:51 (5th ed. 2022)
(footnotes omitted).
With the dismissal of Debtor’s bankruptcy case, this appeal is constitutionally
moot. Olive St. Inv., Inc. v. Howard Sav. Bank, 972 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1992)
(“Once the bankruptcy proceeding is dismissed, neither the goal of a successful
reorganization nor the debtor’s right to the automatic stay continues to exist.”). Since
we are without a context in which to provide effective relief to Debtor, the issues
raised on appeal are moot.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
___________________________