HARDIN VS. OWENS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed this pro se child custody appeal for failure to comply with the procedural filing requirements set forth in NRAP 3E(b), NRAP 3E(c), and NRAP 3E(d)(1). Following docketing on December 23, 2022, the clerk issued a notice setting deadlines for the transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request (January 6, 2023), the docketing statement (January 13, 2023), and the fast track statement (February 1, 2023). After appellant filed none of the required documents, the court issued a February 3, 2023, order directing compliance within 14 days and cautioning that noncompliance could result in dismissal for abandonment. Appellant filed nothing further and did not communicate with the court. The court concluded the appeal was abandoned and dismissed it on that basis.

In plain language

Justin Hardin filed an appeal challenging a child custody decree from a Nye County district court. He represented himself, without an attorney. When an appeal is filed in the Nevada Supreme Court, the appellant must submit several required documents on a set schedule - things like a form telling the court whether trial transcripts will be ordered, a docketing statement (a short form describing the case), and a "fast track statement" (a brief written argument used in expedited child custody appeals). The court sent Hardin a notice on the day his appeal was docketed, listing the deadlines: a transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request by January 6, 2023; a docketing statement by January 13, 2023; and a fast track statement by February 1, 2023. Hardin did not file any of those documents. On February 3, 2023, the court issued an order giving him 14 more days to file the missing paperwork and warning him that if he did not, his appeal could be dismissed as abandoned. He still did not file anything, and he did not otherwise communicate with the court. Because Hardin did not meet the filing requirements or respond to the court's follow-up order, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded he had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it. The dismissal is based on Hardin's failure to prosecute the appeal, not on the merits of the underlying custody dispute.