|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 15, 2006 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Kenosha County: Mary Kay Wagner, Judge. Affirmed.
¶1 ANDERSON, J.[1] John H. H., Jr., appeals pro se from several orders of the circuit court primarily concerning the permanency plans of his four biological children. In his briefs, he raises a host of unorganized and nearly indiscernible challenges to these orders that are unsupported by proper citation to legal and record authority. Because John H. H., Jr.’s briefs do not meet even the bare minimum standards of appellate practice, we refrain from attempting to reach the merits of any of his claims. We affirm.
¶2 Wisconsin Stat. § 809.19(1) provides in pertinent part:
(1) Brief of appellant…. The brief must contain:
….
(d) A statement of the case, which must include: a description of the nature of the case; the procedural status of the case leading up to the appeal; the disposition in the trial court; and a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record.
(e) An argument, arranged in the order of the statement of issues presented. The argument on each issue must be preceded by a one sentence summary of the argument and is to contain the contention of the appellant, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on as set forth in the Uniform System of Citation and SCR 80.02.
Compliance with the rules is required because as a high-volume intermediate appellate court, we are an error-correcting court that cannot take time either to sift the record for facts that might support an appellant’s contentions or develop legal arguments on behalf of the appellant. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992); Nelson v. Schreiner, 161 Wis. 2d 798, 804, 469 N.W.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1991). For this reason, we may choose not to consider arguments unsupported by references to legal authority, arguments that do not reflect any legal reasoning, and arguments that lack proper citations to record authority. See Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 646-47; Nelson, 161 Wis. 2d at 804; Alswager v. Roundy’s, Inc., 2005 WI App 3, ¶15, 278 Wis. 2d 598, 692 N.W.2d 333.
¶3 We recognize that John H. H., Jr., is a pro se appellant. However, pro se appellants must satisfy all procedural requirements, unless the court waives those requirements. Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis. 2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16 (1992). They are bound by the same rules that apply to attorneys on appeal. Id. The right to self-representation is not a license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. Id. (citation omitted). While some leniency may be allowed, neither a trial court nor a reviewing court has a duty to walk pro se litigants through the procedural requirements or point them to the proper substantive law. Id. A pro se litigant’s brief must, at a minimum, state the issues, the facts necessary to understand them, and an argument on those issues. Id. (citation omitted).
¶4 John H. H., Jr.’s briefs are inadequate to permit appellate review in nearly every respect. Notably absent are a coherent statement of facts, proper references to the record and citations to any legal authority to support his claim.[2] His briefs are not a systematic review of the relevant facts and law. They are a disordered litany of unsupported factual and legal conclusions that leave us to attempt to reconstruct John H. H., Jr.’s possible claims from fragments. This we cannot do. We are appellate court judges, not John H. H., Jr.’s attorneys. See Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d at 647 (“We cannot serve as both advocate and judge.”).
¶5 This is not the first time John H. H., Jr., has been denied review for inadequate briefing. In an October 26, 2005 order, we admonished him for filing a brief that was disorganized, lacking in focus on identifiable appellate issues and devoid of citation to any legal authority. We then offered him guidance on the basic requirements for appellate briefing. John H. H., Jr., failed to heed our instructions.
¶6 We have always given pro se appellants a good measure of freedom in their brief writing. We do not expect the precision of a lawyer and we do not ask for rigid adherence to all parts of standard appellate practice. We do expect, however, a thoughtful and earnest attempt to resolve articulated issues in a well-ordered way. Viewed from this standpoint, John H. H., Jr.’s briefs do not meet minimum standards. Accordingly, we reject John H. H., Jr.’s arguments and affirm the circuit court orders.
By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This is a one-judge appeal pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2)(e) (2003-04). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] John H. H., Jr., does cite to his own appendix and appears to offer a few citations to the record. However, the vast majority of his fact statements are unaccompanied by any record citation or are accompanied only by general citation to documents in the appendix. This failure violates the rules of appellate procedure. See Forman v. McPherson, 2004 WI App 145, ¶6 n.4, 275 Wis. 2d 604, 685 N.W.2d 603.