Testo completo
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: INGLEWOOD WOMAN’S CLUB,
INC.,
Debtor.
______________________________
MARLENE FEARING,
Appellant.
No. 17-60053
BAP No. 16-1084
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Lafferty, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Marlene Fearing appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s
(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the
Inglewood Woman’s Club, Inc.’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and
* 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
DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 17-60053
apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s
ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th
Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly denied Fearing’s motion to compel the
bankruptcy court to initiate a criminal investigation because the bankruptcy court
lacked the authority to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 157, 1334(b); Gruntz v. County of
Los Angeles (In re Gruntz), 202 F.3d 1074, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that
bankruptcy jurisdiction is limited to civil proceedings).
We reject as without merit Fearing’s contentions that the BAP misconstrued
the scope of appeal and that the bankruptcy court and BAP violated due process.
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --