Background
Alicia Paschall filed a federal lawsuit alleging constitutional violations by the Kansas Department for Children and Families and others in a state custody action. She filed sixteen emergency motions for injunctive relief, all of which were denied by the district court. Paschall then appealed the denials.
The court’s reasoning
The panel determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of the appeal. The court noted that while pro se pleadings are construed liberally, pro se parties must follow the same rules of procedure as other litigants. The court cannot serve as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments. Paschall’s opening brief did not explain why the district court’s decision was wrong and instead focused entirely on the underlying state court rulings. Because the appellant failed to argue how the district court erred, the court lacked a basis to disturb the decision.
Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers . . . pro se parties [must] follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that pro se litigants must actively argue the merits of their appeal and cannot rely on the court to construct their legal arguments.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download