GUTIERREZ VS. GUTIERREZ (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a procedural dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court recounts that on July 25, 2025, it issued a notice directing the pro se appellant to file and serve a transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request within 14 days, and a docketing statement within 21 days. After noncompliance, the court issued successive orders on September 3, 2025, and October 21, 2025, each setting a new compliance deadline and cautioning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. The appellant filed neither document. Concluding that the appellant had abandoned the appeal, the court dismissed it. The order cites no statutes, rules, or case law.

In plain language

A father, Seth Gutierrez, tried to appeal a family court decision from Clark County that changed the custody and child support arrangements involving him and Cassandra Gutierrez. He filed the appeal himself, without a lawyer. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the Supreme Court requires certain paperwork early in the process. Two of those documents are a transcript request form (or a statement that no transcript is needed) and a docketing statement (a form that gives the court basic information about the case and the issues on appeal). According to the order, the Supreme Court told the appellant on July 25, 2025, to file these documents within set deadlines. When he did not, the court issued a second order on September 3, 2025, giving him a new deadline and warning that the appeal could be dismissed. He still did not file. The court tried again on October 21, 2025, with another deadline of November 4, 2025, and another warning. The documents were never filed. Because the appellant did not submit the required paperwork despite multiple warnings, the Supreme Court concluded that he had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it. The underlying district court order altering custody and support therefore stands.