United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander, United States District Judge
Myers, the self-represented debtor/appellant, appeals two
orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Maryland in bankruptcy case RAG-10-28695.
See ECF 1 (Notice of Appeal); ECF 2 (Record on
Appeal); ECF 4 (Appellant's Brief); see also ECF
2-15 (Amended Order dismissing bankruptcy
case). In particular, Myers appeals the
bankruptcy court's orders with respect to two motions
that he filed in 2016, more than five years after his
bankruptcy case was dismissed. They are: “Order Denying
Motion to Reconsider” (ECF 2-27) and “Order
Denying Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing Case.” ECF
Vetter, who was then the Interim Chapter 13 Trustee, opposed
Myers's attempt to reopen bankruptcy case. See
ECF 2-22 (Trustee's Opposition to Motion to Reopen Case)
(“Opposition”). But, no brief has been filed by
the trustee in this Court, and the time to do so has expired.
See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018 (providing appellee
thirty days to file an appeal after service of
to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8019, Myers has asked the Court to hold a
hearing on his appeal. ECF 5. However, no hearing is
necessary because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in appellant's brief and on review
of the record on appeal, and a hearing would not aid the
decisional process. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8019(b)(3); see also Local Rule 105.6.
reasons that follow, I shall affirm the orders of the
Factual and Procedural Background
August 16, 2010, Myers filed a voluntary petition under
Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. ECF 2-1
(“Petition”). In the Petition, Myers estimated
that he had between one and forty-nine creditors and that he
had between $1, 000, 001 and $10 million in liabilities.
Id. at 1. Moreover, Myers indicated that he had
filed two bankruptcy cases within the past ten years,
i.e., cases NVA-08-18255 and RAG-08-20990. ECF 2-1
at 2. But, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court made an entry on
the docket of the case clarifying that, since 1987, Myers had
filed seven bankruptcy cases in this District. See
to 11 U.S.C. § 341, on August 17, 2010, the Clerk of the
Bankruptcy Court set the meeting of creditors for September
30, 2010. Thereafter, on October 5, 2010, Ellen Cosby, who
was then the Chapter 13 Trustee, moved to dismiss the case
(ECF 2-5), stating that Myers had failed to appear at the
§ 341 meeting on September 30, 2010. Id. Myers
did not respond to the motion to dismiss. See
docket, RAG-10-28695. Judge Gordon dismissed the case by
Order of November 1, 2010. ECF 2-6.
November 8, 2010, Myers filed a motion for reconsideration in
the bankruptcy court, stating that he “did not receive
notice” of the § 341 meeting “due to [his]
failure to provide the court with [his] new mailing
address.” ECF 2-8. Myers also stated that he did not
know that the meeting had been set until he attempted to
attend a hearing on October 22, 2010, which had been
cancelled. Id.; see RAG-10-28695, ECF 18.
Notably, the notice of the hearing on October 22, 2010, was
sent to the same address as the notice of the meeting of
creditors, about one month after the notice of the meeting
with creditors was supposedly sent to the wrong address.
Compare id., ECF 8 at 5 (certificate of notice) with
id., ECF 18-9 (certificate of service).
filed an amended motion for reconsideration on November 23,
2010. ECF 2-10 (“First Motion to Reconsider”). It
appears that the only modification made to ECF 2-8 was the
addition of a certificate of service. See ECF 2-10.
Gordon scheduled a hearing on the First Motion to Reconsider
for January 5, 2011. RAG-10-28695, ECF 45. On January 2,
2011, the Chapter 13 Trustee opposed the First Motion to
Reconsider, arguing that Myers was in default under the
Chapter 13 Plan that he had filed; Myers had failed to attend
the meeting of creditors; and Myers had failed to file
“the required Chapter 13 filings.” See
id., ECF 47.
January 5, 2011, the bankruptcy court proceeded with the
hearing on the Motion to Reconsider. See ECF 2-15.
Myers failed to appear at the hearing. See Id. Judge
Gordon issued an amended order dismissing the case on January
31, 2011, “with prejudice against a new case being
filed in bankruptcy by this Debtor for a period of 365 days .
. . .” Id.
bankruptcy court scheduled another hearing on February 8,
2011, with respect to an ancillary matter. See
RAG-10-28695, ECF 58. At the hearing, pursuant to
Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9023 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, Myers orally moved
for the bankruptcy court to reconsider its amended order
dismissing the case. See ECF 2-18. The bankruptcy
court denied the motion by Order of February 13, 2011.
about the same time, on February 23, 2011, Myers's
properties at 5734 and 5800 Emory Road in Upperco, Maryland
sold at foreclosure for $225, 000. The foreclosure actions
were the subject of two appeals filed by Myers in the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals, both of which upheld the
foreclosures. See Myers v. Katz, No. 1058 and No.
2637, Sept. Term 2011 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 4, 2013)
(“First Appeal”); Myers v. Katz, No.
1091, Sept. Term 2014, 2015 WL 6157305, at *1, 2 (Md. Ct.
Spec. App. Oct. 19, 2015) (“Second Appeal”),
cert. denied, 446 Md. 292, 132 A.3d 195 (2016).
Second Appeal, the Court of Special Appeals explained the
history that led to the foreclosures and the conduct of Myers
with respect to those proceedings. The court recounted that
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County ratified the
foreclosure sales on June 27, 2011. 2015 WL 6157305, at *1,
2. Myers then filed the First Appeal. The Maryland Court of
Special Appeals affirmed, in an unreported, consolidated
opinion issued on June 4, 2013. Id. In particular,
the court “affirmed the circuit court's orders in
both cases, holding that the court did not err in (1)
ratifying the foreclosure sale, and (2) denying Myers's
motion to vacate under Rule 2-535(b).” Id.
on April 7, 2014, Myers filed a second motion to vacate the
judgment, which he later amended and supplemented.
Id. And, on May 19, 2014, Myers filed a motion to
alter or amend judgment, which related to the Auditor's
Report and Account, which he also later supplemented.
Myers, 2015 WL 6157305, at 2. The substitute
foreclosure trustee opposed all of the motions. Id.
order dated July 8, 2014, the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County denied the motions. Id. That court noted that
the motions were “‘fraught with a rambling
dissertation of bald allegations and conclusory statement[s]
not indicative of any fact support.'” Id.
Myers filed a motion to alter or amend the order, which the
circuit court denied. Id.
29, 2014, Myers noted the Second Appeal. Again, the Maryland
Court of Special Appeals affirmed, concluding: “[T]he
law of the case doctrine precludes further litigation of the
issues that could have been raised in Myers's first
appeal.” Id. at 6. The court added,
id.: “If Myers continues to attack a judgment
that is clearly valid and final by imagining new reasons why
he should win,  Myers runs the risk of incurring
sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees pursuant to Rule
1-341.” Thereafter, Myers filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The petition was
denied on February 22, 2016. Myers v. Katz, 446 Md.
292, 132 A.3d 195 (2016).
1, 2016, after Myers was unsuccessful in State court, and
more than five years after Judge Gordon issued his amended
order dismissing the bankruptcy case, Myers filed a
“Motion to Reopen Chapter 13 Case, ” pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 350(b) and Fed.R.Bankr.P. 5010. ECF 2-19.
The motion was supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 2-21
(collectively, “Motion to Reopen”). In the Motion
to Reopen (ECF 2-19), Myers claimed, inter alia,
that the bankruptcy court's order dismissing the case was
void as inconsistent with due process because “all
Notices and Orders, other than the one (1) Notice, sent
November 11, 2010 (Doc 42), were sent to the wrong address .
. . .” Id. ¶ 12. He also argued that the
bankruptcy court should reopen the case so as to
“unwind the foreclosure sale” of his properties
because, in his view, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County
and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals improperly
permitted the foreclosure sale to proceed. ECF 2-21 at 5, 6.
indicated, the Interim Chapter 13 Trustee responded in
opposition to the Motion to Reopen on July 18, 2016. ECF
2-22. In his Opposition, Vetter argued that the claims in
Myers's Motion to Reopen were not cognizable under Rules
60(b)(3) and 60(b)(4). Id. ¶¶ 5-6. In
addition, Vetter asserted that the Motion to Reopen was
untimely. Id. ¶ 7.
19, 2016, Myers submitted a “Motion to
Supplement” his Motion to Reopen. RAG-10-28695, ECF 73.
In the Motion to Supplement, Myers pointed out that the
address to which the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court mailed
copies of notices in 2010 and 2011 was not the mailing
address that Myers listed on the Petition. Id. Myers
filed a reply in support of his Motion to Reopen on July 22,
2016. ECF 2-23. By Order of August 10, 2016, Judge Gordon
denied the Motion to Reopen, without explanation. ECF 2-24.
the Motion to Reopen was pending in the bankruptcy court,
Myers filed two actions in this Court. In the first action,
Myers v. CFG Cmty. Bank, CCB-16-3098, Myers claimed
that the bankruptcy court violated his due process rights by
mailing critical notices to the wrong address. See
id., ECF 1, ¶ 11. Further, Myers claimed that the
case concerned a “wrongful foreclosure” because,
in his view, the foreclosure of his properties was executed
in violation of the bankruptcy court's automatic stay.
Id. at 1. By Memorandum (id., ECF 2) and
Order (id., ECF 3) of September 16, 2016, Judge
Blake dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, finding that the claims pertained to
foreclosure and that federal courts lack jurisdiction over
foreclosure actions. Id., ECF 2 at 4.
thereafter, on September 22, 2016, Myers filed the second
case. See Myers v. CFG Community Bank, ELH-16-3220.
In that case, Myers asserted claims similar to those in his
first case. See id., ECF 2. By Memorandum
(id., ECF 3) and Order (id., ECF 4) of
October 5, 2016, I dismissed the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. In my Memorandum, I explained that
Myers's due process concerns failed to establish subject
matter jurisdiction in this Court. Id., ECF 3 at 5.
And, I observed that his claims appeared to be barred by the
doctrine of res judicata, based on Judge Blake's prior
ruling. Id. at 6-8.
then moved for reconsideration in this Court on October 12,
2016. Id., ECF 5. He filed an amended motion for
reconsideration on October 17, 2016. Id., ECF 6. In
essence, he claimed that the Court “misapprehended
[his] position in this matter” and that his complaint
actually turned on the bankruptcy court's “numerous
violations of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment .
. . .” ECF 6 at 2.
Memorandum (id., ECF 8) and Order (id., ECF
9) of November 29, 2016, I denied the motion for
reconsideration. I explained that the relief sought by Myers
in his amended complaint pertained to the foreclosure of his
properties, and that federal courts lack subject matter
jurisdiction over foreclosure matters, even where due process
arguments are invoked. Id., ECF 8 at 7-8. Moreover,
I indicated that, to the extent Myers challenged the