NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT M. KUN, No. 20-15115
Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05783-RS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Chapter 7 debtor Albert Kun appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ash v.
Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 1984). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kun’s appeal
after Kun failed to file the documents required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 8009 in a timely manner. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-
43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for
failure to prosecute; a district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a
definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (this court may review the record independently if the
district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the
factors).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kun’s motion for
rehearing because Kun failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2); United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208, 1214-
15 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a movant to state
with particularity each point of law or fact a court overlooked).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Kun’s motion for a stay of execution (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15115