Background
Kyle Simmons, the Plaintiff-Appellee, brought suit against Donnie (Donald) Savicky in the District Court of the Third Circuit, Puna Division (Case No. 3DRC-25-0001217). Savicky appealed the district court decision to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, filing a notice of appeal as a self-represented litigant.
Under the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, Savicky was required to file a statement of jurisdiction by April 6, 2026, and an opening brief by June 3, 2026. Savicky failed to meet either deadline. On May 4, 2026, he filed a motion requesting a 14-day extension to “complete and file the required response,” but the request was vague about which specific document he needed additional time for.
The Court’s Holding
On May 14, 2026, the appellate court denied Savicky’s extension motion without prejudice, instructing him to file a more specific motion that identified exactly which document he sought extension time for. Savicky did not comply with this directive and filed no further motion. On June 17, 2026, the appellate clerk entered a default notice warning that the appeal could be dismissed if Savicky did not cure the default.
Because Savicky took no further action to remedy his failure to file the required briefs or to seek appropriate relief from default, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the entire appeal on June 30, 2026, pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30.
Key Takeaways
- Self-represented appellants must strictly comply with appellate filing deadlines and procedural rules or risk dismissal of their appeal.
- A motion for extension must clearly identify the specific document for which additional time is requested; vague requests will be denied.
- Once a default notice is entered, the appellant must affirmatively seek relief from default or face dismissal; inaction results in loss of the appeal.
- Failure to prosecute an appeal results in complete dismissal with no opportunity to cure after the default window closes.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the strict application of appellate procedure rules, particularly for self-represented litigants. Courts will not excuse non-compliance with filing deadlines absent a timely, specific, and properly supported motion for extension. The combination of Savicky’s initial failure to file, his insufficient extension request, and his subsequent inaction gave the appellate court no discretion—the rules mandated dismissal.
For practitioners and self-represented parties alike, this case illustrates that appellate deadlines are not suggestions: they are conditions of appellate review. Once an appeal is dismissed for non-compliance, the underlying district court judgment stands, and the right to appellate review is lost entirely.