In re: SHANEL ANN STASZ v. Rosendo Gonzalez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SHANEL ANN STASZ,
Debtor,
SHANEL ANN STASZ,
Appellant,
v.
ROSENDO GONZALEZ,
Appellee.
No. 11-60048
BAP No. 11-1044
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Dunn, Kirscher, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Shanel Ann Stasz appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-60048 2
Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing her appeal from the bankruptcy court
for failure to file a timely opening brief. 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 in dismissing Stasz’s appeal for failure
to file a timely opening brief after it granted Stasz several extensions of time and
warned her that failure to file an opening brief by May 18, 2011 would result in
dismissal of the appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a) (an appellant’s failure to
take steps required to prosecute an appeal may be grounds for dismissal of the
appeal); Greco v. Stubenberg, 859 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining that
courts ordinarily should consider alternative sanctions as well as the fault of the
person failing to prosecute); see also Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65
(9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants in the ordinary civil case are not excused from
compliance with procedural rules).
The BAP did not abuse its discretion in denying Stasz’s motion for
reconsideration because Stasz failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) (listing grounds for relief from judgment); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024
(applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to bankruptcy proceedings with limited exceptions);
Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

11-60048 3
Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --