PITTS VS. DAVIS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an order dismissing a pro se appeal for failure to prosecute. The appeal arose from a district court order denying a motion to modify child custody, visitation, and/or child support out of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division. Following docketing, the court issued a November 14, 2025 notice setting deadlines for a transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request (14 days), a docketing statement (21 days), and a fast track opening brief (60 days). After noncompliance, the court issued a December 16, 2025 order giving appellant an additional 14 days and warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal, citing NRAP 3E(j) and NRAP 14(c). Appellant filed nothing further, missed the January 13, 2026 fast track opening brief deadline, and did not communicate with the court. Concluding that appellant had abandoned the appeal, the panel (Stiglich, Cadish, Lee, JJ.) dismissed.

In plain language

Edward Pitts asked a Clark County family court to change an existing order about child custody, visitation, and child support. The family court judge denied his request. Pitts then appealed that denial to the Nevada Supreme Court, representing himself without a lawyer. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the Supreme Court requires certain paperwork early in the process - things like a form telling the court whether transcripts of the lower-court hearings will be ordered, a "docketing statement" describing the case, and an opening brief explaining why the lower court got it wrong. On November 14, 2025, the Supreme Court told Pitts when each of these items was due. He missed the deadlines. On December 16, 2025, the court gave him another 14 days and warned him that if he still did not file the missing documents, his appeal could be thrown out. He did not file them. He also did not file his opening brief, which was due January 13, 2026, and he did not contact the court at all. Concluding that Pitts had abandoned the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it. The family court's order denying his motion to modify custody, visitation, and support remains in place.