Background
Shareen W. Kaheaku, a self-represented litigant, appealed a Circuit Court decision involving claims against the State of Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez. The appeal was filed in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals under docket number CAAP-25-0000837.
Like all appellants, Kaheaku was required to follow Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure by filing a statement of jurisdiction by January 20, 2026, and an opening brief by February 17, 2026. These filings are mandatory to advance an appeal on the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal. Kaheaku failed to file either the statement of jurisdiction or the opening brief by the required deadlines and did not request an extension of time. On February 23, 2026, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Kaheaku that the time for filing had expired and that the appeal could be dismissed under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30. The notice also informed Kaheaku that she could request relief from default by motion.
Despite receiving this default notice, Kaheaku took no further action. She did not file the required documents and did not move for relief from the default. The court therefore ordered dismissal of the appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Appeals have mandatory filing deadlines that appellants, including self-represented ones, must strictly observe.
- Failure to file required briefs and other appellate documents results in automatic dismissal under appellate procedure rules.
- A default notice provides notice and an opportunity to cure the defect, but litigants must take affirmative action to avoid dismissal.
- Procedural requirements in appellate practice are rigorously enforced regardless of the merits of the underlying claims.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the critical importance of procedural compliance in appellate practice. Even meritorious claims can be lost entirely if an appellant fails to follow mandatory filing requirements. Self-represented litigants face particular challenges in navigating appellate procedure, yet the courts apply the same strict standards to pro se parties as to represented ones. The default notice system provides fair warning, but it is the litigant’s responsibility to respond promptly.
For practitioners and litigants alike, this case underscores that appellate practice leaves little room for error. Calendar management and strict adherence to deadlines are essential to preserving the right to appeal.