HAKEEM KHALIFAH v. MONIQUE HOLLINGS (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying motions to reconsider and vacate pursuant to NRCP 59(e) and NRCP 60(b). Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Adriana R. White, Judge.

Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the district court's order denying motions to reconsider and vacate (1) the district court's March 3, 2026, order after hearing finding appellant in contempt and granting respondent temporary custody and (2) the March 23, 2026, order after hearing granting certification that the district court would take a remand to address custody issues.

Orders denying motions pursuant to NRCP 59 and/or NRCP 60 are generally appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2) or NRAP 3A(b)(8) if the motions sought relief from an otherwise appealable order. See NRAP 3A(b)(2); NRAP 3A(b)(8). However, the underlying orders here are not appealable. See Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 5 P.3d 569 (2000) (concluding that contempt orders ancillary to another proceeding are not appealable); In re Temp. Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989) (indicating that orders granting temporary custody are not substantively appealable); NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing appeals only from orders that finally resolve child custody issues); see also Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984) (explaining the appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.