SEATON VS. BORLAND (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

• -Where a pro se appellant fails to file the required transcript request form, docketing statement, and fast track opening brief, and fails to otherwise communicate with the court despite a cautionary order, the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.

Practitioner summary

This is a procedural dismissal of a pro se appeal from a district court order resolving child custody issues. The court did not reach the merits. The court recounted the procedural notices and orders governing the appeal. On June 29, 2026, the court issued a notice directing appellant to file a transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request within 14 days, a docketing statement within 21 days, and a fast track opening brief within 60 days. After appellant failed to file the transcript request form and docketing statement, the court issued an August 3, 2026 order directing compliance within 14 days and cautioning that noncompliance could result in dismissal, citing NRAP 3E and NRAP 14(c). The court noted appellant failed to file the required documents, failed to file the fast track opening brief due August 28, 2026, and failed to otherwise communicate with the court. On that basis, the court concluded it appeared appellant had abandoned the appeal and ordered dismissal.

In plain language

Christopher Seaton filed an appeal on his own, without a lawyer, challenging a decision from a family court judge in Clark County about child custody. When someone appeals, the appellate court requires them to complete several procedural steps, such as requesting transcripts of the earlier proceedings and filing written arguments (called briefs) by set deadlines. On June 29, 2026, the court sent Seaton a notice telling him what he needed to file and when: a transcript request form (or a document stating no transcript was needed) within 14 days, a docketing statement within 21 days, and an opening brief within 60 days. When Seaton did not file the transcript form and docketing statement, the court gave him a second chance on August 3, 2026, ordering him to file those documents within 14 days and warning him that if he did not, his appeal could be dismissed. According to the court, Seaton never filed those documents. He also did not file his opening brief, which was due August 28, 2026, and he did not otherwise communicate with the court. Because it appeared to the court that Seaton had abandoned his appeal, the court dismissed it. This means the appeal ended without the court ever deciding whether the underlying custody decision was right or wrong.

Counsel of record

Counsel is shown when the opinion or the court's docket names it.