Opinion
DA 22-0225
09-13-2022
PETER GRIGG, Petitioner and Appellant, v. TIFFANEY GRIGG, Respondent and Appellee.
ORDER
Representing himself, Peter Grigg moves this Court to stay his instant appeal. Through counsel, Tiffaney Grigg responds in opposition.
Peter contends that, as a pro se litigant, he "has been treated with bias/discrimination and denied any further extension of time[.]" He asserts that violations of his "Federal Civil Rights'' have occurred in this and other appeals. Peter states that he "will continue to work diligently to complete the Appellant's Opening Brief in the time alloted from this requested stay."
Tiffaney points out that Peter has obtained a dissolution in Montana, precluding any relief in another state. She adds that this Court affirmed the District Court's decisions. In re Marriage of Grigg, No DA 21-0195, 2022 MT 165N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 761. Tiffaney requests that that this Court deny Peter's motion because she "has been the subject of continuous and extraneous pleadings" in several appeals.
See Marriage of Grigg, No. DA 21-0195, 2022 MT 165N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 761; and Marriage of Grigg, No. DA 22-0252. Order (Mont. Jul. 12. 2022)
By now, Peter should be familiar with this Court's rules, having sought relief here on multiple occasions.
Peter has litigated or attempted to litigate eleven appeals with this Court in two years. See, e.g., Ford Motor v. Grigg, No. DA 20-0013, Order (Jan. 15, 2020); Grigg v. St. John's Lutheran Hosp., No. DA 21-0228, 2022 MT 22N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 60; Grigg v. Beaverhead Cnty. EMS, No. DA 21-0229, 2022 MT 48N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 191; Grigg v. Judge Cuffe, No. DA 21-0368, 2022 MT 79N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 338; Grigg v. Sen. Tester, No. DA 21-0375, Order dismissing appeal sua sponte (Mont. Aug. 24, 2021); Grigg v. Coil. No. DA 21-0651,2022 MT 151N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 689; Grigg v. Paul, No. DA 22-0221, pending; and Grigg v. Hauptman. No. DA 22-0330, Order dismissing sua sponte, without prejudice (Mont. Aug. 3, 2022).
Peter's request for a stay of this appeal is inappropriate. It does not conform with this Court's rules. M. R. App. P. 22.
"It is reasonable to expect all litigants, including those acting pro se, to adhere to the procedural rules." First Bank (N.A.)-Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 376, 711 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1986) (emphasis added), Peter filed his Notice of Appeal with this Court on May 4, 2022. After the receipt of the District Court record on June 8, 2022, this Court granted Peter two extensions of time. We warned Peter about no more extensions of time because Tiffaney opposed both motions, as noted in his pleadings. We have granted Peter latitude and told him that the latitude would not be extended because of prejudice to the other party. Heidema. 219 Mont, al 376, 711 P.2d at 1386. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Peter's Motion for a Stay is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Peter Grigg personally.