Court Docket Sheet
11th Circuit Court of Appeals2017-14221 (ca11)
ORDER: On its own motion, the court DISMISSES the appeal as frivolous.; Motion for leave to proceed construed from consent form filed by Appellant Darryl Burke is DENIED. [8277910-2] GBT, JEC and KCN
Case: 17-14221 Date Filed: (1 of 3) 05/07/2018 Page: 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 David J. Smith For rules and forms visit Clerk of Court www.ca11.uscourts.gov May 07, 2018 Steven M. Larimore U.S. District Court 400 N MIAMI AVE MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 Appeal Number: 17-14221-B Case Style: Darryl Burke v. Chiquita Alexis District Court Docket No: 9:16-cv-81952-WJZ Secondary Case Number: 16-bkc-01065-EPK The enclosed copy of this Court's Order of Dismissal is issued as the mandate of this court. See 11th Cir. R. 41-4. Counsel and pro se parties are advised that pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 27-2, "a motion to reconsider, vacate, or modify an order must be filed within 21 days of the entry of such order. No additional time shall be allowed for mailing." Sincerely, DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court Reply to: Melanie Gaddis, B/lt Phone #: (404) 335-6187 Enclosure(s) DIS-4 Multi-purpose dismissal letter Case: 17-14221 Date Filed: (2 of 3) 05/07/2018 Page: 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14221-B DARRYL BURKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CHIQUITA ALEXIS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Before: TJOFLAT,JULIE CARNES and NEWSOM,Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: Darryl Burke, a federal prisoner, filed in the district court a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed on appeal informa pauperis. The district court denied him informa pauperis status, concluding that he failed to meet the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). However, the district court did not assess the $505.00 appellate filing fee, as is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995,§ 1915. Burke now seeks leave to proceed, as construed from his consent form, in order to appeal the affirmance of the bankruptcy court's denial of his fourth motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of his second appeal from the initial order dismissing his pro se Adversary Complaint, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1), its order dismissing his first appeal, and its orders denying his Case: 17-14221 Date Filed: (3 of 3) 05/07/2018 Page: 2 of 2 prior motions for reconsideration. Because Burke has consented to pay the $505.00 filing fee, only remaining issue is whether the appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This Court now finds that the appeal is fnvolous, DENIES leave to proceed, and DISMISSES the appeal.
Notice of Filing Bankruptcy Court Order Denying Motion to Reopen and Restricting Future Filings entered 1/8/18 (ECF 115) filed by Attorney Jordan Rappaport for Appellee Chiquita Alexis. (ECF: Jordan Rappaport)
Case: 17 - 14221 Date Aleoff Day07 / 2018 Page: 1 of 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DARRYL BURKE, . . . . . . . .: Appeal No. 17 - 14221 - B Appellant CHIQUITA ALEXIS, Appellee. NOTICE OF FILING Appellee, CHIQUITA ALEXIS, by and through her undersigned attorney, files this Order Denying Motion to Reopen and Restricting Future Filings entered on January 5, 2018 in her Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case No. 12 - 14792 - EPK. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served electronically where available or by regular mail to all those enumerated below on this, the 7th day of February, 2018. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the Case: 17 - 14221 Date F2 - off Day07 / 2018 Page: 2 of 13 additional qualifications to practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090 - 1 (A) . . . . . . . . RAPPAPORT OSBORNE & RAPPAPORT, PLLC Attorneys for Appellee, Chiquita Alexis Suite 203, Squires Building 1300 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 368 - 2200 68 - 2200 / s / Jordan L. Rappaport JORDAN L. RAPPAPORT, ESQ. FL Bar No. 108022 SERVICE LIST: Darryl Burke (NTC Pro Se ] FCI Estill - Inmate Legal Mail PO BOX 699 ESTILL, SC 29918 FCI Estill Warden (NTC - ] FCI Estill - Inmate Trust Fund PO BOX 699 ESTILL, SC 29918 Case: 17 - 14221 Date ABeoff Day07 / 2018 Page: 3 of 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DARRYL BURKE, Appeal No. 17 - 14221 - B Appellant CHIQUITA ALEXIS, Appellee. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE - VOLUME LIMIT, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE - STYLE REQUIREMENTS 1. This document complies with [ the type - volume limit of Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a) (7) (B) because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32 (f) this document contains 206 words. 2. This document complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a) (5) and the type - style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a) (6) because this document has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in 14 - point Times New Roman font. Dated: February 7, 2018. / s / Jordan L. Rappaport JORDAN L. RAPPAPORT, ESQ. FL Bar No. 108022 RAPPAPORT OSBORNE & RAPPAPORT, PLLC Attorneys for Appellee, Chiquita Alexis Suite 203, Squires Building 1300 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 368 - 2200 Casest2 - 1472222PK Dde Fof Had20818 Page 4 of 16 KRUPTCY S BANK * * SOUTHERN Y DLUCI of OF FLORIDA * FLORIDA SE ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 5, 2018. Erik P. Kimball, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION In re: Case No. 12 - 14792 - EPK CHIQUITA ALEXIS, Chapter 7 Debtor. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN AND RESTRICTING FUTURE FILINGS HHHHHH This matter came before the Court upon the Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy Case (ECF No. 110 ] (the " Motion") filed by Darryl Burke, the Debtor's Response to Motion to Reopen Bankruptcy Case (ECF No. 113 ] (the " Response") filed by Chiquita Alexis, the debtor in this chapter 7 case, and the reply filed by Mr. Burke (ECF No. 114) . In the Motion, Mr. Burke requests this Court to reopen this chapter 7 case so that Mr. Тke i 1. Burke may file a second adversary proceeding against Ms. Alexis seeking revocation of Ms. Alexis discharge. Attached to the Motion is a proposed adversary complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis in the proposed adversary proceeding. The Motion and the proposed adversary complaint allege that Ms, Alexis ' discharge should be revoked Page 1 of 10 CaseS2 - 1470222PK Dde FH5 off DP0818 Page 2 of 10 due to allegedly fraudulent conduct by Ms. Alexis counsel, Jordan L. Rappaport, Esq ., in an attempt to mislead this Court into discharging otherwise non - dischargeable debts. This is not Mr. Burke's first bite at the apple. The Court is thoroughly familiar with Mr. Burke and his relationship to and allegations against Ms. Alexis. The Court will briefly. . . . . .: . ' . ': ' . ' . . . ': ' I. · summarize the procedural history leading up to the present Motion. Nearly 6 years ago, in February 2012, Ms, Alexis filed a chapter 7 petition. Mr. Burke was not listed as a creditor in the case, because he did not in fact have a claim against Ms. Alexis. The Court entered an order discharging Ms. Alexis on December 6, 2012. ECF No. 71. The chapter 7 trustee filed his final accounting in June 2014, and the case was closed in July 2014. ECF Nos. 98 and 99. Ven m VearS TELE Nearly seven months later, and over two years after Ms. Alexis received her discharge, Mr. Burke filed his first motion to reopen this chapter 7 case, which this Court construed as a request to revoke Ms. Alexis discharge, ECF No, 100. The Court advised Mr. Burke that revocation of a discharge may only be done via an adversary proceeding and denied this request. ECF No. 101. Nearly one year later, and three years after Ms. Alexis received her discharge, Mr. Burke filed his second motion to reopen, seeking the same relief. ECF No. 103. The Court granted this second motion to reopen and also construed the motion to reopen 2S 2 (TeVC CIS as a complaint seeking revocation of discharge. ECF No. 104; ECF No. 1 (adversary) . 1 In that adversary proceeding, Adv. Proc. No. 16 - 01065 - EPK, Mr. Burke sought revocation of Ms. Alexis discharge apparently to ensure that she would not receive a discharge of certain mortgage loan obligations that he alleged were incurred via fraud. Mr. | Were II IT are 1DC11T Burke, however, did not allege that he had a claim against Ms. Alexis. Rather, the gravamen 1 For ease of reference, the Court will refer to docket entries in Ms. Alexis ' chapter 7 case number 12 - 14792 - EPK by citing the relevant ECF number, and will refer to docket entries in adversary proceeding case number 16 O1065 - EPK by including the word " adversary " in the citation. Page 2 of 10 Casase - 147922RK Date 16 off DRYOD208A8 Praire e of 16 of his complaint was that the Court should, sua sponte if necessary, investigate Ms. Alexis case and consider revoking her discharge, apparently for the benefit of certain lenders that Mr. Burke feels were victimized by Ms. Alexis. However, from the text of the complaint, it was apparent that Mr. Burke was (and apparently still is) aggrieved that Ms, Alexis testified against him in a criminal action that resulted in Mr. Burke's incarceration. Ms. Alexis rsar subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding on the grounds that Mr. Burke lacked standing to bring the action and that it was time barred. ECF No. 23 (adversary) . Mr. Burke attended the hearing on Ms. Alexis ' motion to dismiss by telephone. Mr. Burke's statements on the record added nothing to the substance presented in the complaint. However, Mr. Burke admitted on the record that he had actual notice of Ms. Alexis ' bankruptcy case and her alleged fraudulent actions well before entry of discharge in her case. Thus, even if Mr. Burke had standing to pursue revocation of discharge, which he did not because he was not a creditor or otherwise a party in interest, Mr. Burke's request to revoke the discharge was time barred. See 11U.S. C. S 727 (d) (1) . Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in early - May 2016. ECF No. 48 (adversary) . Mr. Burke then filed a series of motions to reconsider the dismissal of the adversary proceeding, each of which the Court denied. ECF Nos, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, and 61 TeC0 eil L (adversary) . In the Court's order at ECF No. 57 (adversary) denying various motions to reconsider, the Court ruled that Mr. Burke failed to satisfy the requirements of either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. In June 2016, Mr. Burke filed a notice of appeal of this Court's order at ECF No. 57 (adversary) . Shortly thereafter, this Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to Local Rule 87. 4 (C) of the District Court, for failure to file a timely designation as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009 and for failure to pay the required filing fee. ECF No. 78 PAG QUI e (adversary) . Page 3 of 10 Casaq2 - 1479242PK DIE fikof RP 3208A8 Page 4 of 16 After this Court dismissed Mr. Burke's first appeal, Mr. Burke filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the adversary proceeding at ECF. No. 48 (adversary), orders at ECF Nos. 57 and 61 (adversary) denying prior motions to reconsider, and the dismissal of the .: -: - - first appeal at ECF. No, 78 (adversary) . ECF No. 81 (adversary) . The Court found that, in MAT VAATIT that motion to reconsider, Mr. Burke raised the same arguments contained in his prior TECO i GAI motions for reconsideration and at the hearing on the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. Mr. Burke stated no new grounds for the Court to reconsider its prior orders. By the time Mr. Burke filed that motion to reconsider, the original dismissal of the first adversary proceeding, the orders denying various motions to reconsider, and the dismissal of the first appeal, had become final orders and no longer subject to reconsideration or appeal. Accordingly, in late - July 2016, incorporating its prior orders at ECF Nos. 57 and 61 S 5 7 (adversary) in full, the Court denied that motion to reconsider. ECF 82 (adversary) . Versal ec0 ] dVersat In mid - August 2016, Mr. Burke filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order at ECF C Sa I EC No. 82 (adversary) denying his motion to reconsider at ECF No. 81 (adversary) . By the end of August 2016, this Court dismissed the appeal, pursuant to Local Rule 87. 4 (c) of the District Court, for failure to pay the appeal filing fee. ECF No. 91 (adversary) . 1ኸnt Mr. Burke immediately filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the just dismissed appeal and a motion to reconsider the dismissal of said appeal. ECF Nos. 93 and ec 94 (adversary) . After careful consideration of the procedural history of the adversary proceeding and the many motions to reconsider, the Court denied Mr. Burke's motion to N. ጎ proceed in forma pauperis and his motion to reconsider dismissal of the appeal. ECF NO. 96 MY ÓPTIS T eco 1EB1 (adversary) . In reiterating its ruling in ECF No. 82 (adversary), the Court further explained that, although a party may seek reconsideration of an order and the appeal period is tolled pending determination of the motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 (c), it was not permissible for Mr. Burke to file the same motion for reconsideration over and over again Page 4 of 10 Casa92 - 147922AK DE 18 off ARIA VO818 Pragë 8 of 18 and then, months later, file a notice of appeal. Because the order dismissing the adversary proceeding at ECF No. 48 (adversary) had become a final order no longer subject to ነ0ርeo ersar Come a reconsideration or appeal, Mr. Burke's practice of filing a notice of appeal of the Court's most. . .: . . . recent order denying Mr. Burke's most recent motion to reconsider, and then filing yet another motion to reconsider the dismissal of said notice of appeal, all of which when stripped down presented the same arguments and requested the same relief, did not somehow toll or ከ rim JULIO 12 UE11E Same revive the relevant reconsideration and appeal time periods for the original and all of the intervening orders. Also, while addressing the merits of Mr. Burke's in forma pauperis request, under 28U.S. C. E 1915, the Court again ruled that Mr. Burke lacked standing to seek revocation of Ms. Alexis discharge because he was not a creditor in her chapter 7 case σε nata Cጳ was and that Mr. Burke's complaint for revocation of discharge was time barred. The Court's detailed findings and rulings did not deter Mr. Burke. Mr. Burke filed a notice of appeal of the Court's order at ECF No, 96 (adversary) . This time Mr. Burke timely filed his designations as required by Fed. R. Bankr, P. 8009 and a proper motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the appeal, allowing the District Court to review this Court's order at ECF No. 96 (adversary) . In August 2017, Senior District Court Judge William J. Zloch affirmed this Court's order at ECF No. 96 (adversary) and dismissed Mr. Burke's appeal. ECF No. 123 (adversary) . Mr. Burke appealed Judge Zloch's order to the Eleventh Circuit, DYS3 2ISI Case No. 17 - 14221 - B, and that appeal remains pending. t Despite the appeal pending with the Eleventh Circuit, Mr. Burke filed the present Motion on November 27, 2017, nearly four months after Judge Zloch's order and nearly five 60 Car years after Ms. Alexis received her discharge, seeking to initiate another adversary proceeding against Ms. Alexis. After review of the Motion, the Court set a deadline for parties in interest to file a response to the Motion. The Debtor timely filed the Response. Page 5 of 10 Casan - 1479222PK DIE IE off ARYA 020818 Ppage 8 of 18 Mr. Burke's present Motion and proposed adversary complaint seek to revoke Ms. Alexis discharge apparently to ensure that she would not receive a discharge of certain mortgage loan obligations that Mr. Burke alleges were incurred via fraud. This time, however, Mr. Burke does not allege that Ms. Alexis is the fraudster, Rather, Mr. Burke ATT. . . . . . ET TO Ullde AP alleges that Ms. Alexis discharge should be revoked due to allegedly fraudulent conduct by her counsel, Mr. Rappaport, in an attempt to mislead this Court into discharging otherwise non - dischargeable debts. Mr. Burke alleges that Mr. Rappaport fraudulently concealed Ms. I COUT ai ITION Alexis ' prior criminal conviction in her schedules and related documents. According to Mr. Burke, disclosure of said prior criminal conviction would have led this Court to deny Ms. Alexis discharge as to the relevant mortgage loan obligations. Mr. Burke relies on Fed. R. ITO Civ. P. 60 (d (3) as the basis both to reopen this chapter 7 case and to revoke Ms. Alexis discharge. The " judgment " referred to in the present Motion and the proposed adversary LA i aj TASOITTI VEIDAL Y complaint is Ms. Alexis ' order of discharge, ECF No. 48, entered December 6, 2012. The Motion is due to be dismissed because, as this Court has ruled over and over again, Mr. Burke is not a creditor in this chapter 7 case. When Ms. Alexis ' bankruptcy petition was filed, Mr. Burke had no claim against Ms. Alexis. As such, Mr. Burke lacks standing to seek revocation of Ms. Alexis discharge. The lenders in question were listed in H TeVO S 11 1 Were In AJ Y CASE, Ms. Alexis ' schedules, received timely notice of her case, and did not seek to have their claims excepted from discharge under 11U.S. C. E 523 or to have Ms. Alexis discharge denied or revoked under 11U.S. C. S 727. As this Court has ruled many times, Mr. Burke also lacks standing to seek revocation of Ms. Alexis ' discharge on behalf of the lenders that Mr. Burke feels were victimized by Ms. Alexis. ECF Nos. 48, 57, 82, and 96 (adversary) . The Motion is also due to be dismissed because Mr. Burke is time barred from bringing an action to revoke Ms. Alexis discharge. 11U. S. C. S 727 (d) (1) provides the exclusive remedy for revocation of a discharge on the ground that the debtor obtained the discharge through Page 6 of 10 casesf2 - 147922PK Dote TigloPR5270105918 Ppage POPf183 fraud. ? In most cases, the fraud alleged in support of a request to revoke the discharge includes the failure to disclose assets or income to the Court as well as to the trustee, creditors, and other parties in interest. Such fraud is, by its very nature, also fraud on the " " - - - - - - - - Court. Yet Congress determined that even in the most egregious circumstances, and even or a where the Court or an affected party in interest had no knowledge of the fraud prior to entry of discharge, the discharge is subject to revocation only for a limited period of time. A complaint to revoke a discharge under section 727 (d) (1) must be filed " within one year after CO JE U UNA Vear such discharge is granted. " 11U.S. C. & 727 (e) (1) . Even if Mr. Burke had standing to pursue SU 1 SIE revocation of the discharge, which he does not because he is not a creditor, Mr. Burke's request to revoke the discharge is time barred. See 11U.S. C. S 727 (d) (1) . Substantially the same allegations presented in the Motion and proposed adversary complaint were raised by Mr. Burke in his original adversary proceeding. ECF No. 1 (adversary) . The fact that Mr. Burke attempts to re - characterize his claims by pointing to the alleged fraudulent actions of Mr. Rappaport rather than Ms. Alexis herself does not change the outcome. The claimed fraud stems from Mr. Rappaport's alleged concealment in Ms. Alexis ' schedules of her criminal conviction. According to Mr. Burke, Mr. Rappaport * CI fraudulently concealed said conviction from this Court because disclosing such conviction would result in the Court ruling that certain mortgage obligations were non - dischargeable. S WEI Although criminal restitution obligations are excepted from discharge, 11U.S. C. S 523 (a) (7), generally a debtor need not reveal a criminal conviction to the Court, creditors, or other interested parties in his or her bankruptcy schedules. Nor does a debtor need to confess that 2 Mr. Burke relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (d) (3) . However, while Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 in cases under the Bankruptcy Code, it specifically provides that " a complaint to revoke a discharge in a chapter 7 liquidation case may be filed only within the time allowed by & 727 (e) of the Code. " In other words, Rule 60 cannot be relied on to extend the time allowed by 11U.S. C. S 727 for the filling of a complaint to revoke a discharge. Page 7 of 10 Cass¢2 - 14 - 192 - EPK Date HigdopHEQJ70a0818 PRage18 - off103 a claim might be excepted from discharge in his or her bankruptcy schedules. In any case, for the same reasons stated above and in several prior orders, even if the present Motion and proposed adversary complaint, somehow present a different claim than pursued in the first adversary proceeding, Mr. Burke lacks standing to bring the proposed claim and the proposed adversary complaint would be time - barred. For the forgoing reasons, the Court will deny the present Motion. In the Response, Ms, Alexis argues that Mr. Burke is a vexatious litigant and should be prohibited from filing future documents with this Court. In support, Ms. Alexis cites May v. Maass, 2005U.S. App. LEXIS 20695, 2005 WL 2298296 (11th Cir. 2005) . That decision 1 1011 implicates Florida's Vexatious Litigant Law, Fla. Stat. Ann. S 68. 093, which provides e Sង ៦ 1S 01 authority to Florida state courts to impose sanctions on and establish filing procedures for litigants found to be vexatious. Bankruptcy courts, as federal courts, are not authorized by the express terms of Florida's Vexatious Litigant Law to impose such sanctions. Kozich v. Cavallaro (In re Kozich), 406 B. R. 949, 954 (Bankr. S. D. Fla, 2009) . However, this does not mean bankruptcy courts are powerless to enter sanctions and police their own dockets. A mean Se * 0 bankruptcy court's power to control the conduct of parties before it is based both in 11U.S. C. Ver PO Evergreen. $ 105 (a) and in the inherent power of the federal courts. Ginsberg v. Evergreen Sec. Ltd. (In re Evergreen Sec ., Ltd .), 570 F. 3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009) . " To impose sanctions under CGTIN Te SI EPFM Et the court's inherent power, the court must find bad faith. " Id. at 1278 (citing In re Walker, 532 F. 3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir, 2008)) . Among other things, bad faith can be found in a party knowingly and recklessly raising a frivolous argument, in a party pursuing a claim for S purposes of harassment, in a party delaying or disrupting litigation, in a party hampering enforcement of a court order, or in a party continually advancing groundless and patently en ᏩᏔᎾ grol frivolous litigation. Id. at 1273 - 1274 (citations and quotations omitted) . Page 8 of 10 Cass¢2 14 - 192 EÞK Date FiglopRBITOAP08 18 PPage 18 offi03 A review of the history of this case, outlined above, leads to the conclusion that Mr. · · · · - Burke has acted in bad faith in this case. Mr. Burke successfully reopened this case and initiated an adversary proceeding seeking to revoke Mr. Alexis ' discharge nearly three years. . .: . . . after Ms. Alexis received her discharge in this chapter 7 case. That adversary proceeding case YF .) I BEZ was dismissed for lack of standing and because Mr. Burke's request to revoke the discharge was time barred. The order dismissing the prior adversary proceeding, ECF No. 48 (adversary), became final long ago. Mr. Burke failed to properly appeal that order. That order is no longer subject to appeal or reconsideration. Yet Mr. Burke has repeatedly asserted the same fraud allegations contained in his initial motion to reopen this case filed years ago, in many, many successive motions, and in the present Motion and proposed adversary complaint. Mr. Burke's repeated filings have necessitated repeated responses from the Ve nece Debtor and repeated orders of this Court. Based on the record in this case, and the relationship between Mr. Burke and Ms. Alexis, the Court finds that Mr. Burke has filed Tee S these repeated allegations primarily to harass the Debtor. Ms. Alexis filed this bankruptcy CaSe ge case with the obvious intent of receiving an order of discharge and a fresh start. Ms. Alexis fulfilled the duties of a chapter 7 debtor and received an order of discharge in December 2012, more than five years ago. Ms. Alexis ' fresh start, however, has been hampered by Mr. Burke's serial and abusive filings. Mr. Burke's repeated filings have further harmed the Debtor by necessitating the incurrence of unnecessary legal fees and expenses. Mr. Burke's serial filings have required the Court to devote substantial time to ruling on matters heard and On Man EEUS rSav ruled on many times before. The present Motion and proposed adversary complaint are nothing more than a continuation of Mr. Burke's vexatious litigation tactics. Under its inherent power, the Court will prohibit Mr. Burke from filing any document in this case, other than documents properly filed with this Court in connection with an appeal. For the forgoing reasons, the Court ORDERS and ADJUDGES as follows: Page 9 of 10 CaseS2 - 1472A2BPK de FIBIOFIS) ODOBR18 Pagge 18 of 10 - The Motion (ECF No. 110 ] is DENIED. The request in the Response (ECF No. 113 ] to bar Darryl Burke from further filings with this Court is GRANTED to the extent provided herein. The Clerk is directed not to accept from Darryl Burke any document except as provided in this paragraph. The Clerk is directed to destroy without filing any document received by the Clerk from Mr. Burke that does not comply with this paragraph. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Burke shall be permitted to file documents with this Court in connection with any appeal to the extent Un COIII. . . . . . . . . . permitted by the Fed. R. Bankr. P ., and the Clerk shall accept such documents for filing. Copies furnished to: Darryl Burke Jordan Rappaport, Esq. Michael R. Bakst, Trustee AUST Page 10 of 10 Case: 17 - 14221 Date (Aeoff Day07 / 2018 Page: 1 of 2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DARRYL BURKE, Appeal No. 17 - 14221 - B Appellant. . . . . . CHIQUITA ALEXIS, Appellee. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 26. 1, counsel for Appellee hereby certifies that the following persons and entities have or may have an interest in the outcome of this case: NONE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served electronically where available or by regular mail to all those enumerated below on this, the 7th day of February, 2018. I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the Case: 17 - 14221 Date (1. 5eoff Day07 / 2018 Page: 2 of 2 additional qualifications to practice in this Court set forth in Local Rule 2090 - 1 (A) . RAPPAPORT OSBORNE & RAPPAPORT, PLLC Attorneys for Appellee, Chiquita Alexis Suite 203, Squires Building 1300 North Federal Highway Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 368 - 2200 / s / Jordan L. Rappaport JORDAN L. RAPPAPORT, ESQ. FL Bar No. 108022. . . . . . . . . . . . . SERVICE LIST: Darryl Burke NTC Pro Se ] FCI Estill - Inmate Legal Mail PO BOX 699 ESTILL, SC 29918 FCI Estill Warden INTC - 1 FCI Estill - Inmate Trust Fund PO BOX 699 ESTILL, SC 29918
|Last full docket sheet refresh: 333 days ago. Refresh now|