DAVIS VS. PFEIFER (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed this pro se appeal from a child custody order for failure to prosecute. After issuing a January 28, 2026 notice setting deadlines for a transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request, a docketing statement, and a fast track opening brief, and a follow-up February 27, 2026 order extending time with an express dismissal warning citing NRAP 3E(l) and NRAP 14(c), the court found that appellant had filed none of the required documents, had not filed the fast track opening brief due March 30, 2026, and had not otherwise communicated with the court. Treating the inaction as abandonment, the court dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

This was an appeal from a Clark County family court ruling about child custody. The person who lost in the lower court, DaQuincy Jovan Davis, filed the appeal without an attorney (pro se) to challenge that custody order. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the Supreme Court requires them to submit several documents on a schedule: a form indicating whether they are ordering a transcript of the lower-court proceedings (or stating they are not), a "docketing statement" describing the case, and an opening brief explaining why the lower court got it wrong. On January 28, 2026, the court told the appellant to file these documents within specific deadlines. The appellant missed the deadlines. On February 27, 2026, the court issued a second order giving 14 more days and warning that further noncompliance could result in dismissal. The appellant still did not file the transcript request, the docketing statement, or the opening brief (which had been due March 30, 2026), and did not contact the court. Because the court concluded the appellant had abandoned the appeal, it dismissed the case. The dismissal ends this appeal; the family court's underlying custody order is not disturbed by this order.