Daniel Nicodemus David Ray Tapscott, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Ryan Raynee Lynn Fariss, Defendant–Appellee. (2026)

Daniel Tapscott petitioned for a protective order under Iowa Code chapter 236 (2025) after he claimed his child's mother, Ryan Fariss, injured him during a custody exchange. The district court ultimately dismissed the case and terminated the temporary protective order, determining that there was insufficient evidence to prove domestic abuse occurred. Now Tapscott appeals, challenging several aspects of the proceedings. However, Tapscott has repeatedly failed to follow our rules of appellate procedure and failed to respond to our order regarding suspected hallucinated case citations, so we dismiss his appeal.

Tapscott's first appellate brief was struck for failure to comply with our rules of appellate procedure. Tapscott's second brief was likewise deficient, and that brief was struck for failure to comply with the rules. He was then given an additional seven days to comply but was warned his failure to substantially comply “may result in dismissal of the appeal.” Tapscott ignored the order and failed to file an amended brief, so the supreme court dismissed his appeal. Tapscott moved to reinstate the appeal, offered reasons for his failure to comply with the court's orders, and the supreme court reinstated but specifically found that “[t]he court's advisories and admonitions regarding [Tapscott's] previous briefs still apply,” and warned that “failure to substantially comply with this order may result in dismissal of the appeal.”

When Tapscott submitted his final brief, we discovered multiple hallucinated citations in Tapscott's appellant's brief. Although we issued an order asking Tapscott to provide the cases he relied on or to explain the citations, Tapscott did not respond to our order. Based on these many defects, we dismiss Tapscott's appeal. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.1202(6); see also In re R.A., No. 24-1629, 2025 WL 2793560, at *2–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025) (striking the entirety of the mother's reply brief as sanction for hallucinated caselaw).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Opinion by Sandy, J.