Background
Stephen Richard Kenny, acting as a self-represented appellant, filed a notice of appeal from the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division (Case No. 2DSS-25-0000335), in a dispute with Christopher James Williams. The appeal was docketed in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals on January 12, 2026.
Under the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, Kenny was required to file a statement of jurisdiction by January 12, 2026, and an opening brief by February 11, 2026. He failed to file either document and did not request an extension of time. On February 23, 2026, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing Kenny that the matter would be called to the court’s attention on March 5, 2026, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal.
The default notice was mailed to Kenny’s address on record but was returned by the United States Postal Service as not deliverable and unable to forward. Kenny did not file a notice of change of address or take any further action in the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The court found that Kenny had failed to file the required statement of jurisdiction and opening brief within the prescribed time periods and had not filed a motion for relief from default or taken any corrective action since the default notice was entered.
The dismissal was entered under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, which allow dismissal for failure to prosecute an appeal. The appellant’s status as a self-represented litigant did not excuse compliance with the mandatory filing requirements.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must comply with strict filing deadlines for appellate documents, including statements of jurisdiction and opening briefs.
- Failure to file required documents or request an extension results in default and potential dismissal of the appeal.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same appellate procedural rules as licensed attorneys and cannot avoid dismissal based on pro se status.
- Maintaining current contact information with the appellate court is essential; an outdated address does not excuse non-compliance.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that appellate courts strictly enforce procedural deadlines and that self-represented litigants cannot disregard filing requirements. The dismissal demonstrates that the appellate system has limited tolerance for non-compliance, even when notice delivery encounters practical difficulties.
For self-represented appellants, this case underscores the critical importance of timely filing all required documents, promptly updating address information with the court, and seeking extensions before deadlines pass. The consequences of procedural default—outright dismissal of the appeal—mean that the merits of the underlying dispute are never reached.