Opinion
DA 21-0641
03-29-2022
ROBERT L. ALLUM, Plaintiff and Appellant. v. STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant and Appellee.
ORDER
Before this Court is an opposed motion to dismiss, filed by counsel for the State of Montana, and a response filed by self-represented Appellant Robert L. Allum.
The State argues that Allum's appeal should be dismissed with prejudice because Allum did not file an opening brief on or before February 28, 2022. The State notes that Allum has not sought an extension of time with this Court. M. R. App. P. 26(1). Anticipating Allum's potential arguments in his response, the State argues that Allum has litigated his claims previously before multiple courts, including this Court. The State refers to Allum's issue about the unconstitutionality of the Workers' Compensation Court. Allum v. Montana State Fund, 2020 MT 159N, ¶ 4, 400 Mont. 561, 464 P.3d 1012 (Allum I). The State points out that it is prejudiced when there is a lack of finality to litigation and contends that dismissal is appropriate, M. R. App. P. 13(3).
Allum responds that he has two motions pending before this Court. He states that he seeks to consolidate constitutional questions, "on whether the affirmative defense, of res judicata, if opposed, can serve as a basis for granting a motion for summary judgment." Allum states that “[a]ll parties, herein, and the judicial branch, of the State of Montana, will incur additional time, effort, and expenses litigating the constitutional issues, until stare decisis quality decisions are rendered, by the Court, on the issues."
Addressing Ailum's pending motions, earlier this month this Court denied his motion to recuse the Justices. See Allum v. State, No. DA 21-0641, Order (Mar. 8, 2022). Allum then filed a Motion to Suspend Rules and Consolidate Constitutional Questions from Two Cases, and the State has since filed a response in opposition. Allum requests that M. R. App. P. 29 be suspended to allow consolidation of this pending appeal with his workers' compensation claim in the Workers' Compensation Court. He states "that if he files his opening brief, he will lose, the due process appeal rights, on the recusal issue." The State notes that Allum has provided no legal authority or argument for his motion. The State points out that Allum has been instructed about the proper procedure for raising constitutional issues. Allum 1, ¶ 3.
This Court denied Ailum's writs of supervisory control where he tried to raise constitutional questions as well as circumvent the Workers' Compensation Court's denial of his motions. See also Allum v. Montana State Fund, No. OP 19-0597, Order denying writ of supervisory control (Mont. Oct. 22, 2019) and Allum v. Montana State Fund, No. OP 19-0695, Order denying writ of supervisory control (Mont. Dec. 9, 2019).
This Court gives wide latitude to self-represented litigants; however, this latitude cannot circumvent our procedural rules or prejudice the opposing party. Greenup v. Russell, 2000 MT 154, ¶ 15, 300 Mont. 136, 3 P.3d 124 (citing Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 376, 711 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1986). This Court received the record from the Gallatin County District Court on January 28, 2022. The State correctly notes that Allum's opening brief was due on February 28, 2022. M. R. App. P. 13(1). Allum has not sought an extension of time in accordance with the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Allum has filed other motions in lieu of filing an opening brief. The State's motion is well-taken . and that dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the State's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED/ with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ailum's Motion to Suspend and Consolidate Constitutional Questions from Two Cases is DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Robert L. A Hum personally.