In re: Ricky Mott
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-03856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Ricky Mott: Judge Vargas dismissed Mott’s bankruptcy appeal because he failed to file required materials or respond to a show-cause order.
Ricky Mott’s appeal from the dismissal of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case was dismissed, and the District Court case was closed.
What happened
In re: Ricky Mott involved Ricky Mott’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of his Chapter 7 case. Mott represented himself in the appeal.
Mott did not file the required list of record materials, statement of appellate issues, or transcript information by the original deadline or by an extended deadline. He also did not respond to the District Court’s order requiring him to explain the failure or confirm that he intended to continue the appeal.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order does not state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- In re: Ricky Mott · No. 1:25-cv-03856
- Vargas
- Sept. 22, 2025
Background
Ricky Mott, representing himself, appealed from an April 24, 2025 order by Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane dismissing Mott’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy case was In re Ricky Mott, No. 25-B-10110.
Appellate Filing Requirements
Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009, an appellant generally must file a designation identifying the materials to include in the appellate record and a statement of the issues to be presented within 14 days after the appeal becomes effective, or after permission to appeal is granted. The appellant must also order any necessary transcripts or file a certificate stating that no transcript is being ordered.
Mott did not comply with these requirements. On July 9, 2025, the District Court extended his deadline to July 22, 2025, but the docket showed that he still had not filed the required materials. On September 3, 2025, the court ordered Mott to explain his failure in writing and warned that failing to respond or indicate an intention to continue the appeal could result in dismissal. Mott did not respond.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered its authority to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, meaning a party’s failure to move the case forward. It applied the factors used for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), including the length of the noncompliance, notice that dismissal could result, possible prejudice from further delay, the court’s need to manage its docket compared with the party’s opportunity to be heard, and whether a lesser sanction would be sufficient.
The court emphasized that the deadline had already been extended and that Mott had received a warning about possible dismissal. It also noted that the bankruptcy record indicated the underlying proceeding violated a litigation ban imposed because of Mott’s history of bad-faith and frivolous bankruptcy filings.
Ruling
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas held that dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute was appropriate. The court dismissed the appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.