United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit September 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20161
Summary Calendar
IN THE MATTER OF: BAQAR SHAH,
Debtor.
MAHENDRA MEHTA,
Appellant,
VERSUS
KENNETH HAVIS, Chapter 7 Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
No. 05 CV 3370
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Mahendra Mehta challenges the district court’s
dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal. We affirm.
Our review of the record reveals that Mehta has tested the
patience of the bankruptcy court and the district court throughout
the history of this protracted litigation. He has filed numerous
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
frivolous motions, frivolous appeals from rulings on those
frivolous motions and has refused to follow orders of the
bankruptcy court.
The activity giving rise to this appeal reflects the nature of
some of this conduct. The bankruptcy court entered a sanctions
order in June 2005. In July, the trustee moved for an order of
civil contempt against Mehta for deliberately refusing to comply
with the June sanctions order. Mehta filed no timely response to
this order. After at least two continuances at Mehta’s behest, the
bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motion on September 19,
2005. Mehta had been ordered to personally appear at that hearing.
Mehta did not appear at the hearing as ordered and his counsel
offered no substantive evidence at the hearing. The bankruptcy
court granted the trustee’s motion, held Mehta in civil contempt
and sanctioned him. On September 29, 2005, Mehta appealed that
order to the district court. The appeal was docketed on October
26, 2005. Mehta’s brief was due on November 10, 2005 under
Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1).
When Mehta’s brief had not been filed on December 29, 2005,
the trustee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to
prosecute. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the
appeal on February 9, 2006. Mehta now appeals that order.
Given the history of Mehta’s frivolous appeals and missed
deadlines in this litigation, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the appeal. The only excuse Mehta offers
2
for failing to file his appeal brief is that he did not have a
transcript of the bankruptcy court proceedings. But it was up to
Mehta to arrange for the transcript and he does not argue that he
requested the transcript.
Given the history of Mehta’s refusal to obey court orders, his
delaying tactics, and missed deadlines, the district court did not
err in dismissing this appeal.2 See Pyramid Mobile Homes, Inc. v.
Speake, 531 F.2d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 1976) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2
Although it is a close case, we decline to award sanctions for
a frivolous appeal. Mehta is cautioned, however, that this court’s
patience is also wearing thin.
3