IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

ROY D. CHEESMAN and RUTH ANN 

FERNANDEZ CONDE (CHEESMAN),

Appellants,

v.

KITTITAS COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT SPECIAL ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

CHRISTOPHER THOMAS HERION,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36985-4-III

(consolidated w/

No. 37146-8-III)

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, C.J. — Roy Cheesman and Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman have filed 

pro se appeals of the dismissal of various claims against Special Assistant Attorney 

General Christopher Herion, including a vexatious litigant finding against Mr. Cheesman. 

We affirm.

FACTS

Roy Cheesman and Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman have three children. The 

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services filed dependency petitions 

for all three children in early 2017 after one child attended school with a black eye and 

FILED

APRIL 13, 2021

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
Nos. 36985-4-III; 37146-8-III

Cheesman v. Special Assistant Attorney Gen.

2

all three children reported their father had hit them. Christopher Herion was a special 

assistant attorney general who prosecuted the petitions on behalf of the State.

The trial court ultimately dismissed the dependency petitions. Though the court 

found sufficient evidence to place the children outside of the home, the evidence did not

establish they were dependent.

By mid-2019, the Cheesmans had filed seven lawsuits against parties who 

participated in the dependency proceedings, including Mr. Herion. Mr. Cheesman also 

submitted a grievance regarding Mr. Herion to the Washington State Bar Association, 

which it promptly dismissed.

Mr. Herion moved to dismiss Mr. Cheesman’s claims against him as a matter of 

law pursuant to CR 12(b)(6). Of Mr. Cheesman’s claims, the trial court dismissed 10:

a. Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241;

b. Deprivation of Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 242;

c. Malicious Prosecution—Abuse of Process, RCW 9.62;

d. Tampering with Physical Evidence, RCW 9A.72.150;

e. Spoliation of Evidence, RCW 33.36.060;

f. Assault of a Child, RCW 9A.36.120;

g. False and Misleading Statements to a Public Servant, 

RCW 9A.76.175;

h. False Reports, RCW 42.20.040;

i. Suppressing, secreting, or destroying evidence or records, 

RCW 33.36.060; [and]

j. Unprofessional conduct, RCW 18.235.130.

Clerk’s Papers at 163-64. Mr. Cheesman timely appealed this dismissal.
Nos. 36985-4-III; 37146-8-III

Cheesman v. Special Assistant Attorney Gen.

3

Mr. Cheesman also sought to have Mr. Herion and his attorney held in contempt 

and moved for a CR 26(f) discovery conference. Mr. Cheesman did not submit any 

discovery requests to Mr. Herion prior to requesting the discovery conference. The trial 

court denied Mr. Cheesman’s contempt and discovery motions. Mr. Cheesman timely 

appealed the court’s discovery decision.

Mr. Herion then moved, pursuant to CR 56(b), for summary judgment dismissal of 

Mr. Cheesman’s remaining claims and asked that Mr. Cheesman “be declared a vexatious 

litigant.” Id. at 234. Mr. Cheesman’s surviving claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

After considering the submissions of the parties, and hearing oral argument, the 

trial court dismissed Mr. Cheesman’s complaint with prejudice. It also found Mr. 

Cheesman to be a vexatious litigant and ordered him “to obtain judicial approval before 

filing any new complaint against any party relating to the dependency petitions.” Id. at 

832. Mr. Cheesman timely appealed the summary judgment order and the vexatious 

litigant finding. The trial court then granted leave for Ms. Cheesman to be joined as a 

party. By an amended notice of appeal, Ms. Cheesman joined Mr. Cheesman in seeking 

review of the summary judgment order and vexatious litigant finding.

The appeals of the CR 12 dismissal, the discovery decision, and the CR 56 

summary judgment have been consolidated as part of the instant appeal.
Nos. 36985-4-III; 37146-8-III

Cheesman v. Special Assistant Attorney Gen.

4

ANALYSIS

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure. In re Marriage of Olson, 69 Wn. App. 621, 626, 850 

P.2d 527 (1993). Failure to do so may preclude review. State v. Marintorres, 93 Wn. App. 

442, 452, 969 P.2d 501 (1999). An appellant must provide “argument in support of the 

issues presented for review, together with citations to legal authority and references to 

relevant parts of the record.” RAP 10.3(a)(6). Arguments unsupported by references to 

the record or citations to authority need not be considered. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy 

v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). “It is not the responsibility of this 

court to attempt to discern what it is appellant may have intended to assert that might 

somehow have merit.” Port Susan Chapel of the Woods v. Port Susan Camping Club, 50 

Wn. App. 176, 188, 746 P.2d 816 (1987).

The Cheesmans’ briefing fails to meet the foregoing requirements. Their 27 

assignments of error are nearly impossible to interpret. The factual statements contained

in their briefing are not supported by citation to the record.

In general, Mr. Herion’s work as an attorney for the State provides him immunity 

from civil liability. See Musso-Escude v. Edwards, 101 Wn. App. 560, 567-74, 4 P.3d 151 

(2000). The Cheesmans’ briefing does not show otherwise. It is not the role of this court 
Nos. 36985-4-III; 37146-8-III

Cheesman v. Special Assistant Attorney Gen.

5

to search out legal authority to support the position of a party on appeal. We therefore 

decline further review.

CONCLUSION

The orders on appeal are affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in 

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________

Pennell, C.J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Siddoway, J.

______________________________

Lawrence-Berrey, J.