RANDOLPH VS. RANDOLPH (CHILD CUSTODY)

25-42414 · 90427 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · September 29, 2025

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Custody & Relocation

Posture Jamie Irene Randolph, appearing pro se, appealed from a decree of divorce entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County (Judge Mari D. Parlade). The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal after the appellant failed to file an opening brief or informal brief despite two notices from the court.

Key holdings

- An appeal may be dismissed under NRAP 31(d) where the appellant fails to file an opening brief or, in the case of a pro se litigant, the court's informal brief form, after notice and an opportunity to cure. - Continued nonresponse to the court's briefing notices supports a determination that the appellant has abandoned the appeal.

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal under NRAP 31(d) based on the appellant's failure to file an opening brief or the alternative pro se informal brief. After issuing a May 2, 2025 notice setting a September 2, 2025 deadline and identifying the acceptable filing options (a brief complying with NRAP 28(a) and NRAP 32, or the court's "Informal Brief Form for Pro Se Parties"), and after issuing a follow-up order on September 10, 2025 granting an additional 7-day window, the appellant neither filed a brief nor communicated with the court. The court treated the inaction as abandonment and entered dismissal. The order resolves no merits issues from the underlying divorce decree.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order ending an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court ever reached the merits. Jamie Irene Randolph filed an appeal from a divorce decree issued by a Clark County district judge. To move an appeal forward, the person who filed it must submit an "opening brief" - a written document explaining what the lower court did wrong and why the appellate court should change the result. Because Ms. Randolph did not have a lawyer, the Supreme Court told her she could either file a formal brief that follows specific rules of appellate procedure or use a simpler "Informal Brief Form for Pro Se Parties" that the court provides for people representing themselves. On May 2, 2025, the court sent her a notice setting a September 2, 2025 deadline to file one of those two documents and warning that missing the deadline could result in dismissal. When that deadline passed with no filing, the court issued a second order on September 10, 2025, giving her another seven days and again warning that the appeal could be dismissed. When Ms. Randolph still did not file anything or otherwise contact the court, the Supreme Court concluded she had abandoned her appeal and dismissed it. The order does not address the underlying divorce decree or any custody issues on the merits.

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.