PICOU-ARMER VS. FINCH (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Clerk's order dismisses the appeal under NRAP 3(f)(2) for failure to pay the filing fee or perfect in forma pauperis status under NRAP 24. The court recounts that its December 27, 2022, order directing the district court to resolve a purported IFP motion was issued in error because the underlying district-court filing did not seek IFP status or comply with NRAP 24. The February 13, 2023, order then gave appellant 30 days to pay the $250 filing fee or file a file-stamped copy of a properly filed district-court IFP motion, with an express caution that noncompliance would result in dismissal. Appellant neither paid nor communicated further with the court, and dismissal followed.

In plain language

This is a short, administrative dismissal - not a ruling on the merits of the underlying child 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, file paperwork asking the court for permission to proceed without paying (called proceeding "in forma pauperis"). Here, the appellant filed his appeal but did not pay the $250 filing fee. The Supreme Court initially thought he had filed a request to proceed without paying, and on December 27, 2022, it told the district court to rule on that request. The Supreme Court later realized that the document the appellant had filed in the district court was not actually a request to proceed without paying and did not meet the requirements of the relevant appellate rule. On February 13, 2023, the Supreme Court gave the appellant 30 days to either pay the filing fee or file a proper request to proceed without paying, and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. The appellant did neither and did not otherwise contact the court. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal.