MACIEL VS. MENDEZ (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

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 to demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 (governing in forma pauperis proceedings) after notice and a 14-day cure period. The order does not reach the merits of the underlying child custody matter from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division (Hon. Nadin Cutter).

In plain language

This is a very short procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of any custody dispute. When someone files an appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court, they generally must pay a filing fee or, if they cannot afford it, follow a specific court rule (NRAP 24) that allows them to ask the court to waive the fee for indigent litigants. In this case, Cesar Maciel filed an appeal in a child custody matter against Esmeralda Mendez but did not pay the filing fee when the appeal was docketed. The court sent him a notice giving him 14 days either to pay the fee or to comply with the rule for waiving it, and told him that if he did neither the appeal would be dismissed. He did neither. The court therefore dismissed the appeal without addressing any of the underlying custody issues.