ACES HARRIS v. DREW HARRIS AND MARLA HARRIS (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.

Over the course of almost seven months since the docketing of this appeal, appellant has failed to comply with numerous notices and orders of this court. The majority of the documents appellant has filed do not comply with this court's procedural rules, despite numerous warnings that failure to timely file compliant documents would result in the dismissal of this appeal.

The docketing statement in this appeal was originally due on October 6, 2025, and the transcript request form was originally due on September 29, 2025. When appellant failed to file these documents, this court directed appellant in its December 15, 2025, order to file and serve a copy of his transcript request form and docketing statement within 14 days. Appellant thereafter attempted to file a docketing statement, but it was stricken for deficiencies and noncompliance with NRAP 14(c) and a corrected docketing statement was ordered to be filed and served by January 13, 2026, noting that noncompliance could result in dismissal of this appeal. Appellant did not file a transcript request form.

After appellant again failed to meet the filing deadlines for the docketing statement and transcript request form, the court entered an order on January 21, 2026, giving appellant 7 days to file a transcript request form and docketing statement, and again noting that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of this appeal. Respondents thereafter filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing that they were never served with the notice of appeal by the district court and that appellant has repeatedly failed to comply with this court's orders. Respondents point to this court's warnings in its orders that appellant's failure to comply would result in dismissal of this appeal and argue that this court should dismiss the appeal and impose sanctions on appellant for the repayment of respondents’ filing fees based on respondents’ contention that the appeal is frivolous.

Appellant filed a transcript request form and docketing statement within the time provided by the January 21, 2026, order, but these documents were again stricken for noncompliance with the rules and appellant was given until February 4, 2026, to file and serve corrected documents. Both orders striking the documents noted that “[f]ailure to comply will result in the dismissal of this appeal.”

On February 4, 2026, appellant filed a response to this court's orders striking the deficient documents, asserting that he “has done everything the court has asked,” that his relative is trying to evict him, and no income is coming in. He asked this court “for a month extension to handle what the court is asking since there is nothing he can do until they rule on the transcript request that [appellant] filed.” Appellant also filed two responses to the motion to dismiss, in which he contends that respondents were properly served and makes several factual assertions regarding respondents’ conduct while failing to address his noncompliance with this court's orders and procedural rules.

The court denied appellant's request to extend time to comply with this court's orders to file the docketing statement and transcript request form in its March 9, 2026, order, as the request failed to state a specific amount of time or the reason additional time is needed. Appellant was ordered to file a transcript request form that complies with NRAP 9(a), a docketing statement that complies with NRAP 14, and file proof of service of the notice of appeal within 7 days of the order. The order cautioned—for the third time—that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this appeal.” (Emphasis added.)

On March 17, 2026, appellant filed a response to this court's March 9, 2026, order. The response describes an eviction hearing in the justice court and appellant's removal from a family member's home. Appellant asserts he “is left with no money, no property, one pair of clothes, and a cell phone” and that he does not have the resources to meet this court's requirements. Although appellant filed this response, he did not file a corrected docketing statement or corrected transcript request form with this court, or proof of service of the notice of appeal, as directed by this court's March 9, 2026, order. Nor did appellant request a specific amount of time to comply with this court's orders.

Having considered respondents’ motion to dismiss, appellant's opposition, and appellant's continued failures to comply with this court's rules and orders, this court finds cause to grant respondents’ motion and dismiss this appeal. While this court is sympathetic to the circumstances currently facing appellant, appellant has been afforded a significant number of opportunities to file compliant documents, with little success. A compliant docketing statement and transcript request form have yet to be filed in this appeal, and it is now nearly six months past the original deadlines for these documents. The court's previous orders have repeatedly warned appellant that failure to comply with its orders and the rules would result in dismissal of this appeal. NRAP 9(a)(c); NRAP 14. Accordingly, in light of appellant's failure to file the docketing statement and transcript request form as repeatedly ordered by this court, and appellant's noncompliance with this court's orders and rules, this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.