govinfo:USCOURTS-txwd-5_26-cv-00346-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 
 
IN RE: 
 
SALUBRIO LLC, Bankruptcy Case No. 20-50578-RBK 
 
 Debtor. 
 
 
DOUGLAS K. SMITH M.D., 
 
 Appellant, 
 
v. Case No. 5:26-CV-00346-JKP 
 
ERIC B. TERRY, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
On this date, the Court considered the above -captioned appeal from the United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. The subject of th is appeal is an Order 
entered by the Bankruptcy Court on January 9, 2026. See Cause No. 20-50578 (ECF No. 1116). 
In the Order, U nited States Bankruptcy Judge Ro nald B. King o verruled an objection from 
Appellant Douglas K. Smith (“Smith”) and denied his requested relief because Smith presented 
“a multifarious motion ” that did not state any substantive grounds for granting it. Id. Now on 
appeal, b ecause Smith fails to carry his burden of establishing he has standing to bring this 
appeal, the Court dismisses this matter for Smith’s lack of standing. 

2 
 
 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and district courts in the Western District of Texas 
have found Appellant Douglas K. Smith (“Smith”) to be a “prolific bankruptcy appellant. ” See, 
e.g., In re Smith, Cause No. 5:25-CV-00101 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2026), (ECF No. 16 at 1).1 Still, 
“Smith continues to file procedurally improper and frivolous filings. ” Smith v. Terry (In re 
Salubrio, L.L.C.), No. 23-50288, 2024 WL 1795773, at *2 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024) (per curiam). 
Smith has specifically been warned, on multiple occasions, he is required to cite to the record on 
appeal. See, e.g., In re Smith, Cause No. 22 -CV-00086, 2024 WL 2228159, at *7 –8 (W.D. Tex. 
May 16, 2024); In re Smith, Cause No. 5:25-CV-00101 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2026) , (ECF No. 16 
at 2). 
 As a threshold matter, Sm ith does not present a response to Trustee Eric Terry’s claim 
Smith lacks standing to pursue this appeal. See ECF Nos. 9, 10. The appellant bears the burden 
of establishing that he or she has standing to bring an appeal. McCardell v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. 
and Urb. Dev. , 794 F.3d 510 , 516 (5th Cir. 2015) . Thus, “the putative appellant shoulders the 
burden of alleging facts sufficient to demonstrate that i t is a proper party to appeal. ” E.g., In re 
Acis Capital Mgt., L.P. , 604 B.R. 484 , at *506 n.19 (N.D. Tex. 2019), aff'd sub nom. Matter of 
Acis Capital Mgt., L.P. , 850 Fed. Appx. 302 (5th Cir. 2021)(unpublished) (citing Rohm & Hass 
Tex., Inc. v. Ortiz Bros. Insulation, Inc. , 32 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1994) ). Because Smith does 
not address the issue of his own standing to pursue this appeal , (see ECF Nos. 2, 10), the Court 
finds he fails to carry his burden and therefore the Court dismisses this appeal for Smith’s lack of 
 
1 See also Matter of Smith, No. 24-50494, 2025 WL 985934 (5th Cir. Apr. 2, 2025) ; Smith v. Terry (In re Salubrio, 
L.L.C.), No. 24 -50272, 2024 WL 4834238 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024) (per curiam); Smith v. Terry (In re Salubrio, 
L.L.C.), No. 23 -50288, 2024 WL 1795773 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024) (per curiam); Smith v. Terry (In re Smith) , No. 
22-50999, 2023 WL 4992835 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023) (per curiam); Smith v. Terry (In re Salubrio, L.L.C.) , No. 22 -
50453, 2023 WL 3143686 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2023) (per curiam). 

3 
 
standing.2 Although, as addressed below, additional reasons exist for denying his appeal. 
Bankruptcy appeals in district courts are governed by t he Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 
Procedure. Rule 8014(a) outlines the content that must be contained in a bankruptcy appellant's 
brief: 
(1) a disclosure statement, if required by Rule 8012; 
 
(2) a table of contents, with page references; 
 
(3) a table of authorities—cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes, and other 
 authorities—with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited; 
 
(4) a jurisdictional statement, including: 
 
(A) the basis for the bankruptcy court's subject -matter jurisdiction, citing 
applicable statutory provisions and stating relevant facts establishing 
jurisdiction; 
 
(B) the basis for the district court's or BAP's juris diction, citing applicable 
statutory provisions and stating relevant facts establishing jurisdiction; 
 
(C) the filing dates establishing the timeliness of the appeal; and 
 
(D) an assertion that the appeal is from a final judgment, order, or 
decree—or information establishing the district court's or BAP's 
jurisdiction on another basis; 
 
(5) a statement of the issues presented and, for each one, a concise statement of 
 the applicable standard of appellate review; 
 
(6) a concise statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues 
 submitted for review, describing the relevant procedural history, and 
 identifying the rulings presented for review, with appropriate references to 
the 
 record; 
 
(7) a summary of the argument, which must contain a succinct, clear, and 
accurate 
 statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief, and which must not 
 merely repeat the argument headings; 
 
2 See also Matter of Salubrio, L.L.C. , No. 22 -50453, 2023 WL 3143686 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2023) ; In re Smith , No. 
21-CV-01135-XR, 2022 WL 16825195 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2022), aff'd sub nom. Matter of Smith , No. 22 -50999, 
2023 WL 4992835 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023); In re Smith, Cause No. 5:21-CV-00476 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2022). 

4 
 
 
(8) the argument, which must contain the appellant's contentions and the reasons 
 for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the 
 appellant relies; 
 
(9) a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought; and 
 
(10) the certificate of compliance, if required by Rule 8015(a)(7) or (b). 
 
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8014(a). Failure to comply with this rule can lead to denial of the appeal and 
result in the district court affirming the bankruptcy court's decision. See Edwards v. Am.'s Home 
Place, Inc., No. CV 3:20-CV-00808-JWD-EWD, 2021 WL 4311810, at *2 (M.D. La. Sept. 22, 
2021); Chlad v. Chapman , No. 1:17-CV-05198, 2018 WL 4144627, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 
2018) (collecting cases), aff'd sub nom. In re Chlad, 922 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2019). 
 Here, Appellant’s Opening Brief, (ECF No. 2 ), fails to comply with Rule 8014. Among 
other issues, the brief contains no cit ations to “parts of the record” on appeal and no cogent legal 
argument explaining the basis for the relief sought. Fed . R. Bankr. P. 8014(a). This is 
unsurprising as Dr. Smith filed his Appellant ’s Opening Brief, ( ECF No. 2), prior to the Clerk ’s 
Record for this appeal being prepared. See ECF No. 7. 
Rule 8014 “is not only a technical or aesthetic provision, but also has a substantive 
function—that of providing the other parties and the court with some indication of which flaws 
in the appealed order or decision motivate the appeal.” Edwards, 2021 WL 4311810, at 
*3 (quoting In re Ross , No. ADV 02 -4326, 2004 WL 6030762, at *3 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. June 4, 
2004)). Lacking a clear argument and devoid of a single citation to the record on appeal , the 
Court cannot begin the task of analyzing the supposed flaws Smith perceives in the Bankruptcy 
Court's proceedings. 3 See Akkineni v. Firstservice Residential Texas, Inc. , No. 4:24 -CV-00939-
 
3 The fact that Smith proceeded pro se does not save him. In proceeding pro se, one “acquires no greater rights than 
a litigant represented by a lawyer,” beyond “liberal construction of properly filed pleadings.” Birl v. Estelle , 660 
F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1981). “The rules of procedure and the rules governing bankruptcy proceedings apply 

5 
 
SDJ, 2026 WL 870412 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2026 ); McCoy v. U.S. , No. 3:18 -CV-00021, 2019 
WL 1084211, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2019), aff'd sub nom. Matter of McCoy , 810 Fed. Appx. 
315 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). 
Still, even providing Appellant’s Opening Brief a liberal construction and attempting to 
decipher Smith ’s arguments, 4 it is unclear what relief Smith requests from this Court. For 
example, in the Statement of Issues, Smith appears to be challenging: 
(1) Whether Trustee Eric Terry’s (“Terry”) failed to prove “Article III standing”; 
 
(2) Whether Smith’s “express denial of consent” to an Article I court rendered all 
 court orders unconstitutional; 
 
(3) Whether a “fraud-on-the-Court” occurred; 
 
(4) Whether Smith was denied “a constitutionally protected right to a fair trial”; 
 
(5) Whether certain conditions require “mandatory disgorgement of cash”; and 
 
(6) Whether alleged “concealment” of evidence by a judge somehow disqualifies 
 material witnesses in future grand jury proceedings. 
 
ECF No. 2 at 11–12. 
Upon review of the Order entered by the Bankruptcy Court on January 9, 2026 , see 
Cause No. 20-50578 (ECF No. 1116 ), and Smith’s Objection that preceded it, see id. (ECF No. 
1115), Smith made similar requests, alongside requests for recusal of the bankruptcy judge and 
for “judicial denial of Trustee Terry ’s request to continue the nearly six year distribution of cash 
collateral,” id. (ECF No. 1115 at 12). To the extent Smith’s main objection is to the Bankruptcy 
Court denying a request to reconsider and deviate from its five-year old Final Order Authorizing 
 
equally to everyone.” In re Salter, 251 B.R. 689, 692 (S.D. Miss.), aff'd, 234 F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 2000) . Therefore, the 
Court must hold Akkineni to the rules and standards applicable to all parties in bankruptcy appeals. See Price v. 
Porter, 351 F.App'x 925, 926 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“[P]ro se litigants are not exempt from compliance with 
the relevant rules of procedure and substantive law[.]”). 
4 The Court ackno wledges Smith includes some sporadic citations to docket ent ries from the case below, without 
referencing the record on appeal. See ECF No. 2. 

6 
 
Use of Cash Collateral , see Cause No. 20 -50578 ( ECF No. 348), the Court agre es with the 
Bankruptcy Court’s finding that Smith did not state any substantive grounds for doing so. The 
Court therefore, upon analysis, could not conclude the Bankruptcy Court erred. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is DISMISSED for Smith ’s lack of bankruptcy 
standing. Contemporaneously, with this Memorandum Opinion and order, the Court will issue a 
final judgment dismissing the appeal. 
 It is SO ORDERED. 
 SIGNED this 11th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
JASON PULLIAM 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight