FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERLINDA ABIBAS ANIEL, No. 13-15528
Debtor-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03794-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JANINA M. HOSKINS, Chapter 7
Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Erlinda Abibas Aniel appeals pro se from the district
court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Aniel’s motion to
vacate an order denying “Debtors’ Requested Certifications Regarding Effect of
Discharge on Secured Debts.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We
*
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).
review de novo the decision of the bankruptcy court without deference to the
district court’s decision. In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700, 702 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
Contrary to Aniel’s contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction
to enter orders in a closed bankruptcy proceeding, the bankruptcy court did not err
by denying Aniel’s filings without first reopening her closed bankruptcy case. See
Staffer v. Predovich (In re Staffer), 306 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2002) (reopening a
bankruptcy proceeding is not necessary for a bankruptcy court to exercise
jurisdiction unrelated to administration).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aniel’s motion
to vacate the order denying the “Certification of Debtors’ Discharge” where Aniel
failed to identify any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (Fed. R. Civ. P.
60 applies to bankruptcy proceedings); Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th
Cir. 1989) (setting forth standard of review).
Aniel’s argument that the bankruptcy court’s entry of the order denying the
“Certification of Debtors’ Discharge” violated Aniel’s due process rights is
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15528