HARVEY VS. CASTILLO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an unpublished order dismissing a pro se appeal from a postjudgment order denying a motion to set aside a child-custody order. The dismissal rests on the appellant's failure to file a docketing statement and fast track statement after multiple extension requests and after express warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal. The order recites the procedural history: an October 25, 2022 order denying a second extension and directing filing within 14 days; a November 28, 2022 order denying a third extension, again directing filing within 14 days, and cautioning that noncompliance "could result in the dismissal of this appeal." The appellant thereafter neither filed the required documents nor communicated with the court, prompting dismissal. The order cites no statutes, rules, or case law and announces no new doctrine. It is a routine docket-management dismissal.

In plain language

Shante Harvey asked the Nevada Supreme Court to review a family-court decision that refused to undo an earlier child-custody order. She filed her appeal without an attorney. To move an appeal forward in Nevada, the appellant has to file certain documents on a schedule, including a "docketing statement" (a form telling the court basic information about the case) and a "fast track statement" (a short brief used in child-custody appeals to speed them up). Harvey did not file these documents on time. She asked the court for more time, and the court granted at least one extension. On October 25, 2022, the Supreme Court denied her request for a second extension and told her to file the missing documents within 14 days. Instead of filing them, she asked for yet another extension. On November 28, 2022, the court denied that third request, again ordered her to file within 14 days, and warned her that if she did not comply the appeal could be thrown out. According to the order, Harvey then did nothing - she neither filed the documents nor contacted the court. Because of that, the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal. The dismissal is procedural: the court did not decide whether the family-court ruling on child custody was right or wrong.