Summary
ordering rebriefing when pro se appellant neglected to include her notice of appeal in the addendum because "we must review [the notice of appeal] to determine the threshold question of whether our jurisdiction has been properly invoked"
Summary of this case from Bugg v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.Opinion
No. CV-13-208
11-06-2013
MINNIE M. COULTER APPELLANT v. HONORABLE JOE GRIFFIN, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ET AL. APPELLEES
Minnie M. Coulter, pro se appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Att'y Gen., for appellees Hon. Joe Griffin and Hon. Kirk Johnson; Wyly Rommel, PLLC, by: Sean F. Rommel, for appellees First Data Merchant Services Corporation and Sean F. Rommel.
APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-2012-243-2]
HONORABLE TED CAPEHART,
JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Minnie M. Coulter, pro se, brings this appeal from a Miller County Circuit Court order purportedly denying her requested relief and dismissing her claims against numerous defendants. Appellant's abstract, addendum, and brief do not conform to the requirements of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2, and we order appellant to file a substituted brief that complies with the rules.
The deficiencies in appellant's abstract, brief, and addendum are many, ranging from failure to include the order appealed from in her addendum to an argumentative statement of the case to a failure to comply with the spacing style required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1. We are, at this juncture, particularly concerned with the absence from the addendum of a December 13, 2012, notice of appeal, because we must review it to determine the threshold question of whether our jurisdiction has been properly invoked by a timely and otherwise effective notice of appeal.
Pro se appellants must follow the rules of appellate procedure and, in doing so, are held to the same standard as attorneys. Parkerson v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 297. Because our recitation of the deficiencies in her brief is not exhaustive, we encourage appellant to carefully review our rules to ensure that no other deficiencies are present; we note that a second failure to file a conforming brief may result in affirmance for noncompliance with our rules. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(c)(2). A model brief is available on the Arkansas Judiciary website (https://courts.arkansas.gov/system/files/Arkansas_Model_Appellants_Brief_March_2010_ Update_0.pdf). Appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum that complies with the rules. After service of appellant's substituted brief, appellees shall have the opportunity to revise or supplement their briefs within fifteen days.
Rebriefing ordered.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.
Minnie M. Coulter, pro se appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Dennis R. Hansen, Deputy Att'y Gen., for appellees Hon. Joe Griffin and Hon. Kirk Johnson; Wyly Rommel, PLLC, by: Sean F. Rommel, for appellees First Data Merchant Services Corporation and Sean F. Rommel.