MALIS VS. LOPEZ (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a pro se appeal from a district court decree of divorce out of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County (Judge Nadin Cutter). The Supreme Court of Nevada dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute and comply with the court's procedural directives. The court's notice of April 20, 2026, directed appellant to file and serve a transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request within 14 days and the docketing statement within 21 days, citing NRAP 14(b). Appellant did not comply. The court then issued an order on May 18, 2026, setting a June 1, 2026 deadline and cautioning that noncompliance could result in dismissal. Appellant attempted to file the transcript request form and docketing statement on June 3, 2026, but the court struck those documents the same date as deficient, directing appellant to correct the deficiencies and re-file conforming documents by June 17, 2026, again cautioning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. Appellant did not file corrected documents or otherwise communicate with the court. Determining that it appeared appellant had abandoned the appeal, the court ordered the appeal dismissed.

In plain language

This case involves a man, Nicholas George Malis, who was trying to appeal a divorce decree - a court order finalizing a divorce - that a family court judge in Clark County had entered. He was handling the appeal on his own, without an attorney (this is called appearing "pro se"). When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the court requires them to submit certain paperwork within specific deadlines. On April 20, 2026, the court sent Malis a notice telling him to file, within set time frames, either a form requesting a transcript of the lower-court proceedings or a certificate stating no transcript was requested, along with a "docketing statement" (a standard form that gives the court basic information about the appeal). Those deadlines were 14 days for the transcript-related form and 21 days for the docketing statement. Malis did not file these documents on time. On May 18, 2026, the court issued another order giving him a new deadline of June 1, 2026, and warned that if he did not comply, his appeal could be dismissed. He attempted to file the paperwork on June 3, 2026 - after that deadline - but the court found the documents deficient and struck them the same day. The court gave him yet another chance, directing him to fix the problems and re-file by June 17, 2026, again warning that failure could lead to dismissal. By the time the court issued this order, Malis had still not filed corrected documents or otherwise contacted the court. Concluding that it appeared he had given up on the appeal, the court dismissed it. The dismissal was based on Malis's failure to follow procedural requirements, not on any decision about whether the divorce decree itself was right or wrong.