Title: Call v. Town of Thayne

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2012 
 
ETHAN 
L. CALL,Appellant(Plaintiff),v.THE TOWN OF 
THAYNE,Appellee(Defendant).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Lincoln County
The 
Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Ethan L. Call, Pro 
se, Afton, WY.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Joseph 
B. Bluemel of Bluemel Law Office, Kemmerer, 
WY.
 
Before KITE, 
C.J., and GOLDEN*, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
*Justice Golden 
retired effective September 30, 2012.
 
HILL, Justice.
 
[¶1]      
Ethan L. Call filed a complaint in district court after making an 
unsuccessful construction bid to the Thayne, Wyoming, City Council (the “Town of 
Thayne”).  The district court granted the Town of Thayne’s 
combined motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss and Call 
appeals.  We summarily affirm.
 
ISSUES
 
[¶2]      
Call states four issues:
 
1.            
The district court 
erred in dismissing the Complaint filed by [Call], as a pro se litigant, 
for failure to state a claim.
2.            
The actions of [the 
Town of Thayne] during the bid selection process deprived [Call] of any rights, 
privileges, or immunities secured under the Constitution and laws.
3.            
[The Town of Thayne] 
in awarding the bid to [its] 'preferred bidder’ failed to do its duty to provide 
an independent observation of the evaluation and selection process in bidding 
the Canal Beautification Project for which [it was] going to use federal 
funds.
4.            
[The Town of 
Thayne’s] publication of an open invitation to bid on the Canal Beautification 
Project created an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      
In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) awarded 
the Town of Thayne a grant to assist with landscaping on and around the Thayne 
canal area adjacent to State Highway 89.  The funds were 
awarded pursuant to federal and state guidelines.
 
[¶4]      
After the Town of Thayne put the project out to bid, four bids were 
submitted, including Call’s.  Coming in at $29,894, Call was 
the low bidder.  However, due to considerable differences in 
the bid amounts, the Town Council set up meetings with each bidder.  
Call missed his meeting with the Town Council.  Another 
bid in the amount of $51,840 appealed to the Town Council and included some 
“add-ons.”  In an effort to be fair, the Town Council asked 
the other three bidders, including Call, to resubmit their bids and include the 
add-ons.
 
[¶5]      
Another bidder was awarded the project on April 22, 2010. 
 On April 28, 2010, Call filed a protest 
with WYDOT alleging that the Town of Thayne discriminated against 
his bid.  As a result, WYDOT eventually withdrew 
grant monies for the project, while affording the Town of Thayne an opportunity 
for reinstatement of the grant.  In June of 2010, the Town of 
Thayne declined the grant money.
 
[¶6]      
Call filed his first complaint in June of 2010, but that action was 
dismissed for failure to comply with the Wyoming Governmental Claims 
Act.  Call filed a new complaint on February 1, 2011 in which 
he claimed (1) a civil rights violation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1983; (2) that the Town of Thayne failed to provide an independent 
observation of the bid evaluation and selection process; and (3) a breach of the 
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Call sought $15,000 
in damages on the § 1983 claim and $10,000 on each of the other 
claims.  The Town of Thayne filed a motion for summary 
judgment and motion to dismiss, to which Call filed a response.
 
[¶7]      
On the motion for summary judgment and to dismiss for failure to state a 
claim and the opposition to that motion, Call presented no witnesses, testimony, 
affidavit or portion of deposition as factual support of his opposition to the 
motion.  The court granted the Town of Thayne’s motion for 
summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim pursuant 
to W.R.C.P. 56(b) and dismissed all of the remaining claims for 
failure to state a claim pursuant to W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) or in the 
alternative, pursuant to Rule 56(b).  This appeal 
followed.
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶8]      
The Town of Thayne raises a preliminary issue relating to Call’s failure 
to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and requests that we 
exercise our discretion pursuant to Rule 1.03 and summarily affirm 
the district court’s decision.  As with other instances in 
which this Court has exercised its discretion to summarily affirm, we will also 
do so in this case.  See Berg v. Torrington Livestock 
Cattle Co., 2012 WY 
42, 272 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2012) and Finch v. 
Pomeroy, 2006 WY 24, ¶ 2, 
130 P.3d 437, 437-38 (Wyo. 2006).
 
[¶9]      
We have stated before that the decision to dismiss an appeal or 
summarily affirm a decision of the lower court based on the filing 
of a deficient brief pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03 is within the 
discretion of the appellate court. 
 Berg, ¶ 9, 
272 P.3d 963, 965.  Rule 1.03 
provides:
 
The 
timely filing of a notice of appeal, which complies with Rule 2.07(a), is 
jurisdictional. The failure to comply with any other rule of appellate 
procedure, or any order of court, does not affect the validity of the appeal, 
but is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, 
including but not limited to: refusal to consider the offending party’s 
contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; and affirmance.
 
Portions 
of W.R.A.P. 2.07(a) state that the notice of appeal shall: “… (3) 
Name the court to which the appeal is taken, [and] (4) Be accompanied by the 
certificate or endorsement required by Rule 2.05.”  That rule 
also requires that an appellant order and pay for a transcript of the portion of 
the evidence deemed necessary for the appeal or if “appellant does not intend to 
order a transcript, the certificate of compliance shall include a statement 
indicating whether appellant intends to procure a statement of evidence pursuant 
to Rule 3.03 or an agreed statement pursuant to Rule 
3.08.”  W.R.A.P. 2.05.
 
[¶10]   
Further required by the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, a notice of 
appeal shall have as an appendix:
 
(1)  All 
pleadings that assert a claim for relief whether by complaint, counter-claim or 
cross-claim and all pleadings adding parties; and
(2)  All 
orders or judgments disposing of claims for relief and all orders or judgments 
disposing of all claims by or against any party; and
(3)  The 
judgment or final order.
 
W.R.A.P. 2.07.
 
[¶11]   
This Court has reaffirmed that
 
It is 
the appellant[s’] burden to bring a complete record to this Court.  
Where a proper record is not provided, an appeal may be dismissed or 
review may be limited to those issues not requiring inspection of the 
record.
. . . 
.
Without 
a sufficient record, we must
“accept 
the 'trial court’s findings as being the only basis for deciding the issues 
which pertain to the evidence.’  'In the absence of anything 
to refute them, we will sustain the trial court’s findings, and we assume that 
the evidence presented was sufficient to support those findings.’”
 
In re 
Estate of George, 2003 WY 129, ¶ 11, 
77 P.3d 1219, 1223 (Wyo. 2003).
 
[¶12]   
Though Call timely filed a notice of appeal, he failed to include a 
certificate or endorsement to order a transcript or declaration that he did not 
intend to order a transcript, thereby addressing W.R.A.P. 3.03 or 
3.08.  Furthermore, Call did not include an appendix to the 
appeal, the complaint, and order granting the Town of Thayne’s motion for 
summary judgment and motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  
Call’s brief is also deficient in a number of ways, in violation 
of W.R.A.P. 7.01.  First, Call fails to 
provide a statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for 
review with appropriate reference to documents listed in the index of 
the transmitted record as required by Rule 7.01(f)(1).  Though he labels a section of his 
brief as the “Statement of Facts,” the section is merely a recitation of 
allegations from the complaint rather than facts from the record that are 
relevant to his issues.  Also, Call’s argument falls short of 
being described as cogent or containing proper citations to authority, as 
required by Rule 7.01(f)(1).  Furthermore, Call’s arguments do 
not state an adequate standard of review in accordance with Rule 
7.01(f)(2).
 
[¶13]   
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the biggest issue facing Call 
is his failure to provide a record upon which we 
could base our decision.  See Nish v. 
Schaefer, 2006 
WY 85, ¶ 6, 138 P.3d 1134, 1137 (Wyo. 2006) (it is the appellant’s 
responsibility to provide a record 
adequate to enable this Court’s review).  In these 
circumstances, we have explained:
 
When this Court does 
not have a properly authenticated transcript before it, it must accept the trial 
court’s findings of fact upon which it bases any decisions regarding evidentiary 
issues.  Capshaw v. Schieck, 2002 WY 54, ¶ 21, 
44 P.3d 47, 54 (Wyo. 2002).  The failure to 
provide a transcript does not necessarily require dismissal of an appeal, but 
our review is restricted to those allegations of error not requiring inspection 
of the transcript.  Lacking a transcript, or a substitute for 
the transcript, the regularity of the trial court’s judgment and the competency 
of the evidence upon which that judgment is based must be 
presumed.  Stadtfeld v. Stadtfeld, 920 P.2d 662, 664 (Wyo. 1996); Combs v. 
Sherry-Combs, 
865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993).
 
Jones v. 
Artery, 2012 WY 63, ¶ 9, 
275 P.3d 1244, 1246 (Wyo. 2012) (internal citations 
omitted).
 
[¶14]   
Not only is it critical to follow the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure, it is of equal importance to present this Court with cogent argument 
and citation to legal authority.  Forbis 
v. Forbis, 2009 WY 41, ¶ 10, 
203 P.3d 421, 424 (Wyo. 2009) (“We have 
consistently refused to consider claims not supported by cogent argument or 
citation to pertinent legal authority.”).
 
[¶15]   
We expect pro se litigants to “'handle this 
professional, technical work in compliance with Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure in the same way that trained lawyers are expected to perform’ but 
'[t]his court has spoken to a certain leniency which should be afforded the 
pro se litigant.’”  Berg, 
¶ 14, 272 P.3d  at 966.  However, blatant 
disregard of our rules of procedure cannot and will not be condoned. 
 When a brief fails to present a valid contention supported by 
cogent argument or pertinent authority, “we consistently have refused to 
consider such cases, whether the brief is by a litigant pro se or 
is filed by counsel.”  Id.  
Considering that and Call’s disregard for the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure, we summarily affirm this case.
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶16]   
Given the deficient brief filed by Call and his failure to follow the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, the decision of the trial court is 
summarily affirmed.