Opinion
22-55914
01-19-2024
In re: KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG, Debtor, v. KIMBERLY MARTIN-BRAGG; GEORGE BARBOUR; LAW OFFICES OF THOMASINA REED, a California law office business entity form unknown; THOMASINA REED, IVAN RENE MOORE, Appellant,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 17, 2024[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:22-cv-03451-DMG for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Ivan Rene Moore appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court's order denying his request for an evidentiary hearing or discovery. We must consider sua sponte whether an order is final and appealable. Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co., Inc. (In re Landmark Fence Co., Inc.), 801 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2015). We dismiss.
We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the bankruptcy court's order was not final and, unlike the district court, this court lacks discretion to consider interlocutory appeals. See SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.), 676 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (providing that a bankruptcy court order is final if it "resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and . . . finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that "[i]t is within the discretion of the district court . . . to hear interlocutory appeals" from bankruptcy courts but "courts of appeals only have jurisdiction to review the 'final decisions, judgments, orders and decrees' entered by . . . district courts" (citing 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)).
All pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.
[*] 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). Moore's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.