1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38654

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

GUARDIANSHIP OF WINTER SKY 

BLANC, A MINOR CHILD.

_______________________________________

WILLIAM JACOB AND TONYA JACOB, 

husband and wife,

Petitioners-Respondents,

v.

KATHLEEN ANN BLANC,

Respondent-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 413

Filed: March 28, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jerome County. Hon. Robert J. Elgee, District Judge; Hon. Jason Walker, 

Magistrate.

District court’s order dismissing intermediate appeal, affirmed.

Kathleen A. Blanc, Pocatello, pro se appellant.

May, Browning & May PLLC; Bart D. Browning, Twin Falls, for respondents.

________________________________________________

GUTIERREZ, Judge

Kathleen Ann Blanc appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her intermediate 

appeal of the magistrate’s order appointing co-guardians of Blanc’s minor daughter. For the 

reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

In October 2010, the magistrate granted the respondents’ petition to be appointed 

co-guardians of Blanc’s young daughter. Blanc, incarcerated at all times relevant to this appeal,

timely appealed the decision to the district court, which entered a procedural order governing the

intermediate appeal on November 5, 2010. On February 2, 2011, the district court dismissed the 
2

appeal for failure to comply with the procedural order. Blanc filed a motion for reconsideration, 

which the district court denied. Blanc now appeals the dismissal of her intermediate appeal.

II.

ANALYSIS

The district court dismissed Blanc’s appeal because Blanc failed to comply with the 

procedural order governing the appeal of the magistrate’s order appointing co-guardians. 

Specifically, the court found Blanc failed to timely arrange and pay for all portions of the 

transcript reasonably necessary for review within fourteen days after filing the notice of appeal. 

Blanc advances numerous arguments in her appellant’s brief; however, she fails to allege 

error as to the actual basis of the district court’s order dismissing her appeal. Given that none of 

the other issues advanced by Blanc have any relevance to the reason for the district court’s 

dismissal of the appeal, we confine our discussion to the basis of the court’s dismissal.

In dismissing the appeal, the district court referenced the “Procedural Order Governing 

Civil Appeal from Magistrate Division to District Court,” issued by the district court after Blanc 

filed a notice of appeal in the district court. Among other things, the order stated that within 

fourteen days after the filing of the notice of appeal, it is the responsibility of the appellant to 

determine the estimated cost of the transcript and pay such estimated cost. The order further 

stated, “Failure to timely remit the estimated and/or final preparation costs shall be grounds for 

dismissal of the ordering party’s appeal . . . .” In its order dismissing Blanc’s appeal, the district 

court noted that the procedural order had been served upon Blanc in November 2010 and that as 

of January 31, 2011, no transcript fee had been paid. Citing, among other rules, Idaho Rule of 

Civil Procedure 83(s) and Idaho Appellate Rule 21, the district court recognized it could dismiss 

the appeal for failure to comply with the procedural order and proceeded to do so. The district 

court also denied Blanc’s motion for reconsideration of its dismissal, noting Blanc had not 

indicated her failure to pay for the transcripts was a result of oversight or excusable neglect, but 

merely restated her inability to pay the fees. 

Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 83(s) provides:

The failure to physically file a notice of appeal or notice of cross-appeal 

with the district court within the time limits prescribed by these rules shall be 

jurisdictional and shall cause automatic dismissal of such appeal upon motion of 

any party, or upon initiative of the district court. Failure of a party to timely take 

any other step in the appellate process shall not be deemed jurisdictional, but may 
3

be grounds only for such other action or sanction as the district court deems 

appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal. 

(Emphasis added.) Thus, it is clear the sanctions for failing to diligently prosecute an appeal 

from the magistrate division are discretionary with the district court; an exercise of sound 

judicial discretion will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Langdon, 117 Idaho 115, 117, 785 

P.2d 679, 681 (Ct. App. 1990); Duff v. Bonner Bldg. Supply, Inc., 103 Idaho 432, 436, 649 P.2d 

391, 395 (Ct. App. 1982). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the 

appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court 

correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the 

boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific 

choices before it; and (3) whether the court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Sun 

Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). 

Upon the present record, we see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to 

dismiss Blanc’s appeal. Blanc was given clear notice of the requirement that she arrange for 

preparation of and payment for the transcript necessary for the district court to consider the 

appeal and, according to the record, had not done so even months after the district court’s 

prescribed time limit. If she could not pay for the transcript, as she alleged in her motion for 

reconsideration, Idaho Code § 31-3220 provides for the waiver of such fees for indigent 

prisoners; however, it requires action by the party seeking the waiver. There is no evidence in 

the record that Blanc followed the procedure in section 31-3220 in an effort to acquire the 

requisite transcript. 

We conclude the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing Blanc’s appeal 

from the magistrate’s order appointing co-guardians. The district court’s order dismissing the 

intermediate appeal is affirmed.

Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LANSING CONCUR.