NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ANIBAL MESALA SILVA, No. 21-60037
Debtor, BAP No. 20-1237
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
ANIBAL MESALA SILVA,
Appellant,
v.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TAX
COLLECTOR; MIDFIRST BANK, A
Federally Chartered Savings Association,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Gan, Taylor, and Lafferty III, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Chapter 13 debtor Anibal Mesala Silva appeals pro se from the judgment of
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders
denying his motion for sanctions and motion to vacate its order denying his motion
for sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo
BAP decisions and 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 review for an abuse of discretion a bankruptcy
court’s award of sanctions. Miller v. Cardinale (In re DeVille), 361 F.3d 539, 547
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Silva’s motion
for sanctions because Silva failed to establish that he suffered any injury by the
alleged violation of the automatic stay. See In re Mwangi, 764 F.3d 1168, 1177
(9th Cir. 2014) (holding a movant must demonstrate actual injury when requesting
sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) based on a violation of the automatic
bankruptcy stay); see also Snowden v. Check Into Cash of Wash. Inc. (In re
Snowden), 769 F.3d 651, 661 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding there is no sanctions remedy
available under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) when a remedy is already available under
§ 362(k)).
Silva failed to include in the record on appeal the transcript of the
bankruptcy court’s hearing wherein the court set forth the reasons for denying
2 21-60037
Silva’s motion to vacate. Due to this failure, we are unable to determine whether
the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and we thus
affirm on this issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) (if appellant intends to challenge
a finding or conclusion as unsupported by the evidence, appellant must include in
the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding or conclusion);
Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169-70 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissing
appeal by pro se appellant for failure to provide relevant trial transcripts); Portland
Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 877 F.2d 787, 789
(9th Cir. 1989) (declining to consider argument that district court erred due to
failure to provide transcript of contempt hearing).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Silva’s pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 3, 30, and 39) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-60037