Vaughn v. Stanton , 2005 MT 327N ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                            No. 05-272
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    2005 MT 327N
    STEPHEN VAUGHAN,
    Petitioner and Appellant,
    v.
    REVA STANTON,
    Respondent and Respondent, For
    the Matter of Custody/Visitation of a
    Minor Child, Michael Vaughan.
    APPEAL FROM:         The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
    In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DR 2004-117,
    Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    Stephen Vaughan, pro se, Marcy, New York
    For Respondent:
    Reva Stanton, pro se, Missoula, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs: December 7, 2005
    Decided: December 20, 2005
    Filed:
    __________________________________________
    Clerk
    Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
    ¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
    Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
    as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
    its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
    quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports
    ¶2     Stephen Vaughan (Vaughan), pro se, appeals from the Order of the District Court of
    the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, denying his Motion Directing Service and his
    Motion for Appointment of Counsel. We affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    ¶3     From February of 2004 to March of 2005, Vaughan made several efforts to initiate an
    action in the District Court. First, in February of 2004, Vaughan filed his Notice of Motion
    to Proceed as a Poor Person, thereby notifying the District Court of his intention to bring a
    “Visitation Action.” In doing so, Vaughan designated Reva Stanton (Stanton) as the
    Respondent. Further, Vaughan gave notice of his status as an inmate at New York’s Marcy
    Correctional Facility.
    ¶4     In March of 2004, Vaughan filed a Petition for Visitation, claiming that he and
    Stanton, although never married, were the natural parents of a minor child named Michael
    Vaughan. Further, Vaughan claimed that Stanton resided in Montana and had maintained
    custody of the child since birth. Finally, Vaughan requested “an order awarding visitation
    through correspondence at least twice monthly” with the child. At this time, Vaughan also
    2
    filed his Affidavit in Support of Order to Show Cause wherein he, inter alia, claimed to be
    unable to achieve personal service, and thus requested that “timely service by mail be
    deemed sufficient.”
    ¶5     Later that month, the District Court filed an Order observing that Vaughan had not
    served his pleadings on Stanton, and stating that the court would not act upon any pleadings
    until Vaughan produced proof of service of process. Further, the Order required Vaughan to
    file “a specific pleading as to why jurisdiction should be held in Montana, rather than the
    State of Washington, where the Snohomish County, Washington Superior Court . . .
    established paternity and reserved residential parenting time with Mr. Vaughan.”
    ¶6     In May of 2004, Vaughan filed an Affidavit of Jurisdiction explaining why
    “jurisdiction is the State of Montana for the purposes of this action.” The District Court then
    entered another Order observing that Vaughan’s Affidavit of Jurisdiction had not been served
    on Stanton, and stating that the court would not act upon any pleadings until Vaughan
    produced proof of service of process.
    ¶7     In July of 2004, Vaughan filed an Affidavit of Service, wherein he claimed to have
    “served” a copy of his Affidavit of Jurisdiction upon Stanton by mailing it to her. The
    District Court then entered an Order observing that the Affidavit of Jurisdiction had not been
    served on Stanton by a process server. The Order also stated that the court would not act
    upon any pleadings until Vaughan produced proof of service of process by a process server.
    ¶8     In March of 2005, Vaughan filed several documents together. First, he filed a Motion
    Directing Service, claiming to have no means by which to effectuate service by a process
    3
    server, and thus requesting “an Order of the Court, Directing Service of the annexed
    documents by regular mail . . . or in the alternative Directing the Clerk of the Court to
    provide for Service of the annexed documents upon Respondent, Reva Stanton.” Second, he
    filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, claiming to be unfamiliar with Montana law and
    claiming that he lacked the funds to accomplish service by a process server. Third, he filed
    an Application for Appearance Via Electronic Testimony. Fourth, he filed another Affidavit
    of Jurisdiction. Finally, he filed an Amended Petition for Visitation, requesting that the
    District Court order, inter alia, correspondence with Michael Vaughan at least four times per
    month.
    ¶9     The District Court then filed an Order which stated that Vaughan’s Amended Petition
    for Visitation would be filed, but also denied his motions. First, the District Court denied the
    Motion Directing Service, stating that it would not act upon any pleadings until Vaughan
    produced proof of service of process by a process server. Second, the District Court denied
    Vaughan’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, stating “[t]he Court does not appoint counsel
    to represent clients in domestic relations matters, only criminal matters.” Third, the District
    Court denied Vaughan’s Application for Appearance Via Electronic Testimony, stating
    “[u]ntil such time as Respondent is served, the Court will hold no hearings in this matter.”
    ¶10    From this Order, Vaughan appeals.
    DISCUSSION
    4
    ¶11    We have determined that our decision in this case is appropriately rendered by
    memorandum opinion pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating
    Rules, as amended in 2003.
    ¶12    On appeal, Vaughan claims that the District Court erred in denying his Motion
    Directing Service and his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. These denials, Vaughan
    asserts, violated his constitutional right to access the courts and his right to due process.
    Further, Vaughan cites a “fundamental right to the care, companionship, custody and
    management of his minor child . . . .” Setting aside questions as to whether this appeal is
    properly before us, we decline to address the merits of Vaughan’s arguments because he has
    failed to present an adequate brief for our review.
    ¶13    We have demonstrated in the past that we are willing to make accommodations for pro
    se litigants by relaxing the technical requirements which do not impact fundamental bases for
    appeal. However, appellants ultimately have the burden of establishing error by a district
    court. State v. Bailey, 
    2004 MT 87
    , ¶ 26, 
    320 Mont. 501
    , ¶ 26, 
    87 P.3d 1032
    , ¶ 26. In
    carrying that burden, an appellant must do more than simply make generalized claims that his
    or her constitutional rights were violated by the alleged error. State v. Whipple, 
    2001 MT 16
    ,
    ¶ 34, 
    304 Mont. 118
    , ¶ 34, 
    19 P.3d 228
    , ¶ 34.
    ¶14    Vaughan’s contentions on appeal are generalized and lacking in analysis. Further, he
    fails to properly support his arguments with legal authority as required by Rule 23(a)(4),
    M.R.App.P. As we have stated, “it is not this Court’s obligation to conduct legal research on
    appellant’s behalf, to guess as to his precise position, or to develop legal analysis that may
    5
    lend support to his position.” In re Estate of Bayers, 
    1999 MT 154
    , ¶ 19, 
    295 Mont. 89
    , ¶ 19,
    
    983 P.2d 339
    , ¶ 19. We would have to undertake precisely these tasks in order to consider
    Vaughan’s appeal further.
    ¶15    Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of Vaughan’s arguments.
    ¶16    Affirmed.
    /S/ JAMES C. NELSON
    We Concur:
    /S/ KARLA M. GRAY
    /S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
    /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
    /S/ BRIAN MORRIS
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-272

Citation Numbers: 2005 MT 327N

Filed Date: 12/20/2005

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014