Dan Lee, Sr. v. D. Matthew Edwards, 16-6020

Dan Lee Sr. filed a Chapter 7 petition on April 26, 2016, but submitted inconsistent credit-counseling paperwork and did not timely file a required statement of exigent circumstances.
Bankruptcy court issued an Order/Notice on April 26 identifying missing documents and gave 14 days to file them or request an extension; Lee did not timely file the credit-counseling certificate or exigent-circumstances statement.
The court dismissed Lee’s case on May 11, 2016 for failure to file required schedules and credit-counseling documentation; Lee filed a belated exigent-circumstances document the same day.
Lee filed three motions to reinstate/reconsider (May 18, May 27, June 16). The first was timely but denied (May 19) and not appealed; the second and third were untimely under Rules 52/59 and were denied by the bankruptcy court.
After the June 16 denial of his third motion, Lee appealed only that denial (filed June 24), arguing impropriety, Rule 2 violations, separation of powers, bias/prejudice, and invoking the Mailbox Rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying Lee’s third motion to reconsider	Lee argued the denial was improper and that subsequent filings cured defects	Court argued motion was untimely and did not show cause under Rule 60(b); later filings did not retroactively cure eligibility at filing	Affirmed — denial not an abuse of discretion; motion untimely and meritless
Whether the Mailbox Rule (Rule 8002(c)) applied to toll deadlines	Lee invoked the Mailbox Rule to extend filing time	Appellee/court noted the Mailbox Rule applies only to incarcerated inmates; Lee is not an inmate	Held not applicable
Whether alleged judicial bias or separation-of-powers violations required relief	Lee claimed bias/prejudice and separation-of-powers errors	Court found no factual support for bias; separation-of-powers claim unexplained	Held no evidence of bias; claims rejected
Whether appellate jurisdiction existed to review the original dismissal order	Lee argued the dismissal was erroneous	Court noted Lee failed to file a timely appeal from the May 11 dismissal and therefore the panel lacked jurisdiction to review that dismissal	Held no jurisdiction to review May 11 dismissal; only appealable order was denial of the third motion and it was affirmed

In re Strong, 305 B.R. 292 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.) (discussing appellate jurisdiction review)
In re Weihs, 229 B.R. 187 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.) (appellate jurisdiction principles)
In re Murphy, 474 F.3d 143 (4th Cir.) (standard: abuse of discretion reviewing post-judgment relief)
In re Storey, 392 B.R. 266 (B.A.P. 6th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
In re Johnson, 458 B.R. 745 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.) (discussing standards for relief and appellate review)
Stalnaker v. DLC, Ltd., 376 F.3d 819 (8th Cir.) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re Moix-McNutt, 215 B.R. 405 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.) (presumption of judicial impartiality)
Ouachita Nat. Bank v. Tosco Corp., 686 F.2d 1291 (8th Cir.) (recusal burden)
American Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 594 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir.) (bias standard: deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)
United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir.) (bias standard)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court) (adverse rulings alone do not indicate bias)
In re Dudley, 273 B.R. 197 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.) (Mailbox Rule limited to incarcerated appellants)