WILBERT ROY HOLMES v. CAPUCINE YOLANDA HOLMES (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order denying a motion for clarification, denying a motion for stay, and granting a motion to find appellant a vexatious litigant, and vacating a hearing. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Heidi Almase, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the orders designated in the notice of appeal are not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984); Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order denying a motion for clarification, denying a motion for stay, granting a motion to find appellant a vexatious litigant, or vacating a hearing. See Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 295 P.3d 586 (2013) (a post-judgment vexatious litigant determination is not independently appealable); Brunzell Constr. Co. v. Harrah's Club, 81 Nev. 414, 404 P.2d 902 (1965) (an order denying a stay of proceedings is not appealable), superseded by statute as stated in Casino Operations, Inc. v. Graham, 86 Nev. 764, 765, 476 P.2d 953, 954 (1970) This court lacks jurisdiction, and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.