F-Law
← Case library

JOHNSON VS. ISAACS (CHILD CUSTODY)

22-40580 · 85730 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · December 27, 2022

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Shaquawn D.R. Johnson docketed an appeal in a child custody matter against Robin Isaacs on December 5, 2022, without paying the required filing fee. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a notice the same day directing the appellant to pay the fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days, warning that noncompliance would result in dismissal.

Editorial review flagged 7 item(s) at material severity. Verify against the source PDF before relying.

Key holdings

- An appeal docketed without payment of the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e), and not cured after notice or shown to qualify under NRAP 24, is subject to dismissal under NRAP 3(a)(2).

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2) for failure to pay the filing fee required by NRAP 3(e) or, in the alternative, to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24. The court issued a 14-day notice to cure on the day the appeal was docketed; the appellant neither paid nor responded. The order is a clerk's order of dismissal and does not reach the merits of the underlying child custody dispute.

In plain language

This is a one-page administrative order, not a ruling on the merits of any custody dispute. When someone files an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally have to pay a filing fee. If they cannot afford it, they can ask the court for permission to proceed without paying by following a specific rule (NRAP 24, which governs proceeding "in forma pauperis"). Here, the appellant, Shaquawn D.R. Johnson, filed an appeal but did not pay the fee. The court sent a notice giving him 14 days to either pay or show that he qualified to proceed without paying. He did neither and did not respond at all. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address the underlying child custody issues between Johnson and Robin Isaacs.

Read the full opinion →

This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.