HARVEY VS. CASTILLO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed this pro se appeal from a district court order denying modification of child custody after the appellant repeatedly failed to file her docketing statement and fast track statement. After denying a third motion for extension on March 14, 2024, and ordering compliance by April 12, 2024, the court denied a fourth extension motion on April 29, 2024, granted an additional 14 days, and warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal. The appellant neither filed the required documents nor communicated further with the court. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal. The order is unpublished and contains no merits analysis of the underlying custody ruling.

In plain language

This is a child-custody appeal that never reached the merits. Shante Harvey asked the trial court to change a custody arrangement for a minor child. The trial judge denied that request, and Harvey - representing herself, without a lawyer - appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. When you file an appeal in Nevada, you have to submit certain starting paperwork early in the process, including a "docketing statement" and a "fast track statement" (short documents that tell the appellate court what the case is about and what issues will be argued). Harvey did not file those documents on time. She asked the Supreme Court for more time to file them - repeatedly. On March 14, 2024, the court denied her third request for an extension and ordered her to file the documents by April 12, 2024. Instead of filing them, she asked for a fourth extension. On April 29, 2024, the court denied that fourth request, gave her another 14 days, and warned her that if she still did not comply, the appeal could be dismissed. She did not file the documents and did not contact the court again. Because of that, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address the underlying custody dispute; it ends the appeal on procedural grounds only.