Title: Pinther v. Webb

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Pinther v. Webb1999 WY 97983 P.2d 1221Case Number: 98-19Decided: 07/08/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
RONALD PINTHER, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

MARGARET WEBB and PHILIP 
P. WHYNOTT, Appellees (Respondents).

 

Appeal from the District 
Court of Laramie County, The Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, 
Judge.

Pro se., 
representing appellant.

Philip P. 
Whynott and Harry D. Ivey, Cheyenne, WY., representing 
appellees.

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, GOLDEN, and TAYLOR,* JJ., and GUTHRIE, D. 
J.

* Chief Justice at time of 
expedited case conference; retired November 2, 1998.

LEHMAN, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Ronald 
Pinther raises a variety of issues; however, the only question to be resolved by 
this court is whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing 
Pinther's attempt to obtain judicial review of a decision by a panel of the 
Wyoming State Bar Committee on Resolution of Fee Disputes. The district court 
dismissed Pinther's petition for review because it failed to comply with the 
requirements of W.R.A.P. 12.06. Finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing 
Pinther's petition, we affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2]      We adopt appellee 
Philip Whynott's statement of the issue:

Whether the 
district court abused its discretion by dismissing appellant's petition for 
review because it failed to comply with the applicable 
rules.

FACTS

[¶3]      In 1993, Pinther 
was a party in a divorce action which included a child custody dispute. Appellee 
Philip Whynott was appointed guardian ad litem for the child, and Pinther was 
ordered to pay Whynott's fees. Pinther disputed and did not pay part of 
Whynott's fee because Pinther felt that Whynott allocated a disproportionate 
amount of time to listen to purported evidence that was adverse to [Pinther's] 
case" and refused to listen to certain testimony. Eventually, Whynott assigned 
his claim to a collection agency operated by appellee Margaret 
Webb.

[¶4]      On April 2, 1997, 
Webb filed a complaint in Laramie County Court against Pinther to recoup 
$1,152.30 owed to Whynott by Pinther. On April 24, 1997, Pinther filed a 
"Petition for Resolution of Fee Dispute Before the Wyoming State Bar, " and the 
matter was referred to the Wyoming State Bar Committee on Resolution of Fee 
Disputes. A panel of the fee dispute resolution committee issued a decision 
letter on August 20, 1998, awarding Whynott $856.00 ($ 1,356.00, less $500.00 
previously paid).

[¶5]      Pinther filed a 
Notice of Appeal/Petition for Review with the district court on September 19, 
1997. The court dismissed the petition for review because it failed to comply 
with the Wyoming Rules for Resolution of Fee Disputes and the Wyoming Rules of 
Appellate Procedure. Pinther moved for reconsideration on December 12, 1997, 
which the court denied. Pinther timely appeals the district court's order to 
dismiss and denial of reconsideration.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶6]      W.R.A.P. 1.03 
provides in pertinent part:

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 
. . . is ground only for such action as the appellate court deems appropriate, 
including but not limited to . . . dismissal.

[¶7]      The appellate 
court's authority contained in this rule is a classic statement of discretionary 
power. McElreath v. State, ex rel. Workers' Compensation Div., 901 P.2d 1103, 
1106 (Wyo. 1995). If a petition for review fails to comply with the rules of 
appellate procedure, the only issue to be resolved is whether the district court 
abused its discretion in finding dismissal appropriate. 
Id.

Judicial 
discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from 
objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is 
right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or 
capriciously.

Vaughn v. State, 
962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998).

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      Pursuant to Rule 
14 of the Wyoming Rules for Resolution of Fee Disputes, judicial review of an 
administrative decision is governed by W.R.A.P. 12. The requirements of a 
petition for review are detailed in W.R.A.P. 12.06, which 
provides:

Rule 12.06. 
Requirements of Petition.

The petition for 
review shall include:

(a) A concise 
statement showing jurisdiction and venue;

(b) The specific 
issues of law addressed to the district court for review;

(c) A brief 
statement of the facts relevant to the legal issues raised before the agency, 
showing the nature of the controversy in which the legal issues arose; 
and

(d) A copy of 
the agency decision shall be attached as an appendix.

The petition 
shall not exceed five letter pages in length, excluding appendix, and shall be 
in the format described in Rule 7.05(b).

[¶9]      The district 
court's decision letter detailed numerous deficiencies in Pinther's petition for 
review. First, the petition includes neither a concise statement of jurisdiction 
and venue nor a statement of the specific issues of law presented for the 
district court's review. Instead, the petition provides a thumbnail sketch of 
the facts that, without more contextual information, does not define any legal 
issues. In addition, the petition does not identify the administrative agency 
from which the appeal was taken. Although Pinther attached a decision letter to 
his petition, even that letter does not identify the issuing agency. 
Furthermore, despite the fact that Pinther's petition for review was filed with 
the district court, Pinther requested that the district court order this matter 
be heard by jury trial in Laramie County Court. " The confusion engendered by 
these problems was compounded by deficiencies in the petition's caption. In the 
caption, the parties were misidentified as plaintiffs and defendant, rather than 
petitioner and respondents. In addition, because the names of the appellees 
appeared first, the caption does not comply with W.R.A.P. 2.08(a). All these 
defects led the district court to conclude: "The initial review of this appeal 
to determine the parties, jurisdiction, venue, and issues was an 
impossibility."

[¶10]   Despite the petition's 
deficiencies, Pinther claims that dismissal of the petition is harsh and that 
dismissal without a hearing is even harsher. "Dismissal is, indeed, a harsh 
sanction, but one permissible under [W.R.A.P.] 1.03." McElreath, 901 P.2d  at 
1106. The review conducted by the district court, as described in the decision 
letter, indicates that the court carefully considered Pinther's petition before 
determining that it was simply too confusing to invoke the jurisdiction of the 
district court. We conclude that the district court exercised sound judgment 
under the circumstances, and that its decision to dismiss Pinther's petition for 
review was not an abuse of discretion. Because Pinther's other issues relate to 
the merits of the underlying fee dispute, they are not appropriate for our 
review.

CONCLUSION

[¶11]   We have often stated that we expect 
pro se litigants to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure in the 
same way that trained lawyers are expected to perform. Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 889 P.2d 967, 968 (Wyo. 1995); Korkow v. Markle, 746 P.2d 434, 435 (Wyo. 1987). In 
this case, Pinther's petition for review failed to meet even the most basic 
requirements of the rules of appellate procedure. The district court did not 
abuse its discretion in invoking the sanction of dismissal against Pinther. The 
Order Amending Caption and Dismissing Appeal and Order Denying Motion for 
Reconsideration are affirmed.