Background
Plaintiffs Hope M. Rasmussen, Cecilia F.M. Richardson (individually and as co-trustees of the Hope M. Rasmussen Trust), and William Richardson brought suit in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division against defendant William Coward. After judgment in the district court, Coward — representing himself — filed an appeal to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals.
During the appellate proceedings, Coward repeatedly failed to file his opening brief on time, ultimately seeking at least twelve extensions of time. On June 12, 2026, the court dismissed the appeal for his failure to prosecute it. Three days later, on June 15, 2026, Coward filed three separate documents that the court collectively construed as a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, a motion for relief from default, and a request for a twelfth extension of time to file his opening brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals denied all three motions. Applying Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(b), the court found that Coward failed to demonstrate that the court had overlooked or misapprehended any point of law or fact when it dismissed the appeal on June 12, 2026. Because that standard was not met, reconsideration was unwarranted.
The court’s denial was issued unanimously by Chief Judge Nakasone and Associate Judges Wadsworth and Gluck, leaving the June 12 dismissal order intact and ending the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant seeking reconsideration under HRAP Rule 40(b) must show the court overlooked or misapprehended a point of law or fact — bare disagreement with the ruling is insufficient.
- Chronic failure to file an opening brief, even with repeated extension requests, can result in dismissal of the appeal; reconsideration will not revive the appeal absent a showing of legal or factual error in the dismissal.
- Courts will construe multiple pro se filings together to determine their substance, but self-represented status does not relax the procedural standards required to obtain reconsideration.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the strict application of Hawaii’s appellate reconsideration standard and the consequences of prolonged failure to comply with briefing deadlines. For practitioners advising clients who have missed appellate deadlines, the case underscores that a motion for reconsideration is not a second chance to seek more time — it requires a genuine showing that the court made a legal or factual error in its prior order.
For courts managing pro se dockets, the decision reflects a consistent approach: self-representation warrants liberal construction of filings, but it does not entitle a party to indefinite extensions or a relaxed reconsideration standard. After a twelfth extension request and ultimate dismissal, the court found no basis to disturb its prior ruling.