5 NICS App. 56, PRATT v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL P.D. (June 1998)

IN THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

HOOPA VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION

HOOPA, CALIFORNIA

Daniel E. Pratt, Appellant,

v.

Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department, Respondent.

No. C-96-048 (June 3, 1998)

SUMMARY

Appeal denied for failure to perfect in a timely manner. A layperson representing himself in a court of law is bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive law as an attorney.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Lorintha Warwick, Chief Justice; Emma Dulik, Justice; Christopher P. Williams, Justice.

THIS MATTER came before the Hoopa Valley Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Daniel E. Pratt’s Notice of Appeal filed on March 26, 1998. Mr. Pratt appeals from a March 12, 1998 Opinion and Order of the trial court.

Respondent Hoopa Valley Tribal Police Department objects to Mr. Pratt’s appeal on two grounds: (1) that the Notice of Appeal was not filed timely; and (2) that Mr. Pratt has not posted security as required by Hoopa Valley Tribal Code §1.7.03 and Rule of Court 22.

Section 1.7.03 requires an appellant to perfect his appeal “through posting of a bond or any other way that will satisfy the judgment if affirmed. . . .” Likewise, Rule of Court 22 provides:

Within ten (10) days from the entry of judgment, a party dissatisfied with the judgment may file a notice of appeal with this court. Said party shall give proper assurance to the court, through the posting of a bond or such other means as will satisfy the judgment if affirmed, as a precondition to having the right to appeal. [Emphasis added.]

See also Colegrove v. Marshall (C-89-003, Hoopa 1990) (Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal because the appellant had failed to post bond or other security and therefore, had not complied with the tribal code requirements for perfection of his appeal).

5 NICS App. 56, PRATT v. HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL P.D. (June 1998) p. 57

On May 12, 1998, this Court ordered Mr. Pratt to provide proof, by May 18, 1998, that he had perfected his appeal by posting security within ten days from entry of judgment. On May 18, 1998, Mr. Pratt filed a Motion for Extension, requesting both additional time in which to provide that proof and additional time to secure the required bond.

The intent of this Court’s order was to allow Mr. Pratt the opportunity to show that he had complied with the requirements of the Hoopa Valley appellate rules in a timely manner, thereby perfecting his right to appeal. This Court’s May 12th order does not allow Mr. Pratt additional time in which to post security.

Mr. Pratt further argues that he should be allowed more time because he is a “layman of the law” and was not informed of the need to post bond. Every individual has the right to bring an action in action in a court of law; however, that right carries with it the concomitant responsibility of familiarizing oneself with the relevant rules and governing laws. Although this Court is ever vigilant in its efforts to ensure the fairness of proceedings involving pro se litigants, a party who represents himself is bound by the same rules of procedure and substantive law as any attorney representing him would have been.

The Hoopa Valley Tribal Code is clear in its requirements for filing a notice of appeal. Mr. Pratt has not met the requirements set out in the code.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Extension is denied.

It is further ordered that this appeal is hereby denied.