Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10353
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:17-cv-23174-RNS; 17-bkc-14566-LMI
CARLOS COLETTA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 4, 2018)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Carlos Coletta, a debtor proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order
affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of relief from an automatic stay to The
Bank of New York Mellon (“Mellon”). He argues that the Bankruptcy Court erred
because it did not stipulate whether it was “annulling, terminating, or modifying”
the automatic stay, nor did it stipulate whether the automatic stay would remain in
effect for other creditors. He also argues, relying on 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(3), that
the stay should not have been lifted before 90 days after the issuance of the order
granting relief from the stay. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
We liberally construe complaints filed by pro se litigants, but issues not
briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874
(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam); see also Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829
(11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that pro se litigants are required to follow
procedural rules). Furthermore, we will generally not consider an issue on appeal
unless it was raised in the district court. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385
F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
Coletta presented two arguments before the District Court. First, he argued
that the Bankruptcy Court erred by terminating the automatic stay when, under 11
U.S.C. § 362(d), the court could have granted a partial lift of the stay. Second,
Coletta argued that the relief the Bankruptcy Court provided left him unprotected
from other creditors.
2
Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 3 of 4
On appeal, Coletta presents two seemingly new arguments. First, he argues
that the Bankruptcy Court erred by failing to “stipulate if the stay has been
modified, terminated or annulled” when it “simply [issued] . . . an order granting
relief from the automatic stay as to ‘Mellon’” without “mention[ing] if the Stay
will remain in effect in regards to the other creditors.” Appellant’s Br. at 10.
Second, Coletta argues that the stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(3), should not
have been lifted before 90 days after the issuance of the order granting Mellon’s
motion.
The second of Coletta’s arguments on appeal is certainly new—nothing
resembling this argument was made before the District Court. Thus, we decline to
evaluate that argument on the merits. Coletta’s first argument on appeal, although
phrased in a way that makes it seem distinct from his previous argument,
effectively recapitulates his arguments before the District Court: that the
Bankruptcy Court erred by terminating the automatic stay as to all creditors when
it should have lifted the stay only as to Mellon.
The problem with this argument is not that it’s new.1 The problem is that
Coletta is tilting at windmills: the relief he seeks has already been granted by the
Bankruptcy Court. As the District Court explained, “The bankruptcy court’s order
1
We do not read Coletta’s argument as a general challenge to the Bankruptcy Court’s
order granting Mellon relief from the stay. Any argument to that effect would be barred as new.
3
Case: 18-10353 Date Filed: 12/04/2018 Page: 4 of 4
is, in fact, limited to only Bank Mellon and Bank Mellon’s interest in the Hialeah
property. Further, the bankruptcy court’s order granting Bank Mellon relief from
the stay does not affect the protections Coletta may have from his secured creditors
in his bankruptcy case.” Coletta v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 17-23174-Civ-Scola,
2018 WL 566450, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s order.
AFFIRMED.
4