PATTERSON v. << (2019)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court's minute order denying appellant's petition for name change. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; William S. Potter, Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal and docketing statement reveals a jurisdictional defect. The district court's minute order is ineffective and it does not appear that the district court has entered a written order regarding its decision made on October 2, 2018. See Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that the district court's oral pronouncement from the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order cannot be appealed); Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004) (holding that “dispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective”). Thus, the notice of appeal was prematurely filed and this court lacks jurisdiction. See NRAP 4(a)(6) (providing that “[a] premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction” and that this “court may dismiss as premature a notice of appeal filed after the oral pronouncement of a decision or order but before entry of the written judgment or order”). Accordingly, this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   This court is confident that the district court will enter a signed written order regarding its October 2, 2018, ruling as soon as its docket permits. If aggrieved, appellant may file a new notice of appeal once the district court enters a written order.Given this order, this court takes no action on the transcript request form filed April 1, 2019.