Opinion
DA 24-0316
09-17-2024
IN RE THE PARENTING OF T.R.L., a minor child, CASSIE NEZ PERCE, Petitioner and Appellant, and BOB A. LUHMAN, Respondent and Appellee.
ORDER
Through counsel, Bob A. Luhman moves this Court for dismissal of this appeal, arguing that self-represented Appellant Cassie Nez Perce did not present an opening brief that complies with the requirements of M. R. App. P. 12(g)(1). Nez Perce has not filed a written response to the motion. It is not readily apparent whether counsel for Bob contacted Nez Perce before filing the instant motion. M. R. App. P. 16(1).
Luhman contends that dismissal is required because Nez Perce has not made concise and cohesive arguments under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Luhman notes that while Nez Perce cites to Montana criminal law, she has not applied those laws to her argument and that Montana criminal law was not before the District Court. He provides that he has not received a copy of the transcript. Luhman contends that Nez Perce is wasting judicial resources with her failure to follow the rules and to "submit a comprehensible opening brief." Luhman requests dismissal of the appeal and an award of costs.
Luhman acknowledges that this Court is "predisposed to give pro se litigants considerable latitude in proceedings, [but] that latitude cannot be so wide as to prejudice the other party[.]" First Bank (N.A.)-Billings v. Heidema, 219 Mont. 373, 376, 711 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1973) (emphasis added). Luhman argues that Nez Perce has not complied with the rules as demonstrated in McMahon. In re McMahon, 2002 MT 198, ¶ 6, 311 Mont. 175, 53 P.3d 1266. In McMahon, this Court ultimately dismissed the self-represented Appellant's appeal because Appellant Gwen McMahon did not meet her “burden of establishing error by that court." McMahon, ¶ 7.
This Court allows some latitude with briefs filed by pro se litigants. When an appellant has filed an opening brief, we will rarely impose a sanction of dismissal. M. R. App. P. 13(3). We observe that on June 28, 2024, this Court received notice of a failure for Nez Perce to pay tor transcripts. In McMahon, we did not dismiss the appeal until after full consideration of the parties' briefs. Luhman is correct that without a transcript, our review of the issues Nez Perce presents may be limited. This Court will consider his arguments upon full briefing and review of the record before us on appeal.
If IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Luhman's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Cassie Nez Perce personally.