United States District Court, D. Nevada
YOUSIF H. HALLOUM, Appellant,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Appellees.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge.
before the Court is the Motion to Transfer Venue, (ECF No.
7), and related filings, (ECF Nos. 8, 12),  filed by
Appellant Yousif H. Halloum (“Appellant”).
Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)
filed a Response, (ECF No. 14), to which Appellant did not
file a reply. Also pending before the Court is
Appellant's unopposed Motion for Leave to Allow Pro Se
Filing, (ECF No. 6).
reasons addressed below, Appellant's Motion to Transfer
is DENIED and the Motion for Leave to Allow
Pro Se Filing is GRANTED.
appeal arises from the bankruptcy court's denial of
Appellant's motion to permit his tardy filing of a
disclosure statement, plan of reorganization, and appraisal.
(See Notice of Appeal at 3, ECF No. 1). Appellant
filed his voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada (the
“bankruptcy court”) seeking relief with respect
to two pieces of real property, one in Nevada, and the other
in California. (See Ch. 11 Pet., In re Yousif
Halloum, No. 16-16815-BTB (Bankr. D. Nev. Dec. 29,
Fargo moved the bankruptcy court for relief from imposition
of the automatic stay, which Appellant did not oppose.
(See Order, ECF No. 57, In re Yousif
Halloum). After a hearing on the issue, the bankruptcy
court ordered termination of the automatic stay.
(Id.). Appellant subsequently filed a motion
requesting permission to file a tardy disclosure statement,
plan of organization, and appraisal. (See Motion,
ECF No. 77, In re Yousif Halloum). The bankruptcy
court denied Appellant's Motion, and this appeal
followed. (See Order, ECF No. 108, In re Yousif
to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1), Appellant elected to have this
Court, rather than the bankruptcy appellate panel, consider
his appeal. (See Notice of Appeal at 2). Following
this Court's order setting forth a briefing schedule,
(ECF No. 5), Appellant filed the instant Motion to Transfer
Venue, (ECF No. 7). Appellant correspondingly moved the
bankruptcy court to transfer venue, which the court denied
following a hearing. (See ECF Nos. 132, 142, In
re Yousif Halloum). Appellant appealed that ruling,
which is currently pending before Judge Gordon in No.
Motion to Transfer Venue
requests that the Court transfer this action to the District
Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C.
1404(a). (Mot. to Transfer 7:7-9:4, ECF No. 7). Wells Fargo
responds that Appellant's Motion is procedurally improper
and is premised upon an inapplicable legal standard. (Resp.
2:1-3:13, ECF No. 14). The Court agrees with Wells Fargo.
has not identified authority permitting this Court to
transfer the action to another district court. The statute
upon which Appellant relies, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), allows
transfer only to “any other district or division where
[the action] might have been brought.” Having elected
to have this Court hear his appeal rather than the bankruptcy
appellate panel, this Court is without authority to transfer
the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (“An
appeal under this subsection shall be taken only to the
district court for the judicial district in which the
bankruptcy judge is serving.”). The Court, therefore,
denies Appellant's Motion.
Motion for Leave to Permit Pro Se Filings
also moves the Court for leave to permit his filing of pro se
briefs, (ECF No. 6). Although pro se parties are generally
held to less stringent standards, “pro se
litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated
more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”
Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.
1986). A pro se litigant must follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants. King v.
Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986); Ghazali
v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that
“pro se litigants are bound by the rules of
procedure”). The court appreciates that it can be
difficult for pro se parties to litigate their claims. Pro se
parties are advised to familiarize themselves with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of
Practice, and relevant case law as much as
possible.The Local Rules of Practice require
attorneys “to file all documents electronically.”
LR IC 2-1(a). However, “[a] pro se litigant may request
the court's authorization to register as a filer in a
specific case.” LR IC 2-1(b).
Appellant asks the Court to allow him to use the
District's CM/ECF system in order to file, access, and
electronically serve documents in this case. For good cause
appearing, Appellant's ...