NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

JAMES JOSEPH KNOCHEL
, Appellant
,

v.

WEST YAVAPAI GUIDANCE CLINIC
, Appellee

.

No. 1 CA

- HC 17

- 000 1

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300CV201600447 The Honorable Cele Hancock
, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL
James Joseph Knochel
, Prescott Appellant

The Ledbetter Law Firm P

. L

. C

. , Cottonwood By James E. Ledbetter, Tosca G. Henry Counsel for AppelleeKNOCHEL v. WYGC Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Patricia K. Norris 1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.

N O R R I S , Judge:

¶1 Appellant, James J. Knochel, appeals from the superior court’s order dismissing without prejudice his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Supporting Memorandum of Law” ( “ Petition”) on behalf of E.M. 2 because he failed to comply with the procedural requirements of A.R.S. § 36

- 546(A)(2)

. 3 For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

.
DISCUSSION

¶2 We have an independent duty to determine whether we have jurisdiction over an appeal. Grand v. Nacchio , 214 Ariz. 9, 15, ¶ 12 , 147 P.3d 763, 769 (App. 2006) . Generally, a party may only appeal a final judgement

. A.R.S. § 12

- 2101 (A) (1) ( 2016); Baker v. Bradley , 2 3 1 Ariz. 475, 479, ¶ 9, 296 P.3d 1011, 1015 (App. 201 3 ) (court of appeals jurisdiction “limited to

1 The Honorable Patricia K. Norris, Retired Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division One, ha s been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.

2 Although labeled a “P etition for Writ of Habeas Corp us,” the Petition expressly d id not request E.M.’s release from court ordered mental health treatment at the West Yavapai Guidance Clinic ( “ WYGC ” ). Instead, the Petition request ed the court to “investigate” E.M.’s mental health treatment under A rizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 36

- 546 (2016). Accordingly, as did the superior court, we have treated the Petition as a request for relief under A.R.S. § 36

- 546.

3 Section 36

- 546(A)(2) requires that a request for release “shall be delivered to the med ical director of the agency” providing treatment

. The record before us contains no evidence that Knochel ’s request was delivered to the medical director of WYGC

— the agency providing
treatment. Although the L egislature amended this statute in 2017, after Kn ochel filed the Petition, the amendments did not change these requirements.KNOCHEL v. WYGC Decision of the Court

3 appeals from final judgements which dispose of all claims and parties”) (citations omitted) . A final judgment dismissing an action with prejudice is appealable, but an order dismissing an action without prejudice is not. Workman v. Verde Wel l ness C tr. , Inc. , 240 Ariz. 597 , 600, ¶ 7, 382 P.3d 812, 815 (App. 2016) (order dismis sing without prejudice is not a f inal judgement under A.R.S. § 12

- 2 1 01(A) (1) because plaintiff can refile action and has nothing to appeal) (citation and quotation omitted).

¶3 Here, the s uperior court’s order dismissed the Petition

“ without prejudice to the proper procedural filings

. ” Accord ing ly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Knochel’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny WYGC’s request for an award of attorney s’ fees on appeal because it did not identify a substantive basis for its request as required by Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 21 (a)(2). Nevertheless, we award WY GC ’s costs on appeal contingent upon its compliance with ARCAP 21(b).