EUGENE K. JONES-EL v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, Defendants-Respondents.

Missouri Court of Appeals

EUGENE K. JONES-EL v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, Defendants-Respondents.

506 S.W.3d 355, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 991

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 5, 2016

DocketSD34447

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 506 S.W.3d 355 (EUGENE K. JONES-EL v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, Defendants-Respondents.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

EUGENE K. JONES-EL v. GEORGE LOMBARDI, Defendants-Respondents., 506 S.W.3d 355, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 991 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.

Eugene K. Jones-El (“Jones”) appeals from a second amended judgment of the trial court, granting a motion to dismiss 1 Jones’ civil petition against twenty-four prison workers and six court officials. The gist of Jones’ petition was that prison officials failed to provide him with a typewriter and companion materials to prepare an appeal in Jones v. State, No. ED98705. In Jones, the Eastern District rejected his appeal because it did not comply with Rule 84.06(e) due to being handwritten. The trial court dismissed Jones’ petition on the basis that Jones had already brought the same claim in federal court, and the parties had settled that claim pursuant to a written settlement agreement.

We observe that, in numerous respects, Jones’ appeal to this Court fails to follow the mandatory dictates of Rule 84.04. Jones’ statement of facts wholly fails to follow Rule 84.04(c), and his argument section similarly fails to provide citations to the record in violation of Rule 84.04(e). Absent proper citations to the record, we may not, of our own initiative, seine the record in search of materials to support Jones’ cause. Shields v. L&P Transp., LLC, 317 S.W.3d 654, 656 (Mo.App.S.D.2010). Engaging in a search for factual matter in the record to support an appellant’s claims would put this court in the unacceptable position of becoming an advocate for appellant. Eder v. Lawson’s Hardwood Floors, Inc., 403 S.W.3d 623, 625 (Mo.App.S.D.2012). For that reason, Jones’ failure to tie his alleged claims of legal error to specific factual matter from the record with specific citations, renders his point unreviewable. In re Marriage of Smith, 283 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009).

Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

GARY W. LYNCH, P.J.—CONCURS NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J.— CONCURS

1

. Jones failed to file with this Court, as part of the record on appeal, the motion to dismiss that is the subject of this appeal, in violation of Rule 81.12(d).

All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2016).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J.

Eugene K. Jones-El (“Jones”) appeals from a second amended judgment of the trial court, granting a motion to dismiss 1 Jones’ civil petition against twenty-four prison workers and six court officials. The gist of Jones’ petition was that prison officials failed to provide him with a typewriter and companion materials to prepare an appeal in Jones v. State, No. ED98705. In Jones, the Eastern District rejected his appeal because it did not comply with Rule 84.06(e) due to being handwritten. The trial court dismissed Jones’ petition on the basis that Jones had already brought the same claim in federal court, and the parties had settled that claim pursuant to a written settlement agreement.

We observe that, in numerous respects, Jones’ appeal to this Court fails to follow the mandatory dictates of Rule 84.04. Jones’ statement of facts wholly fails to follow Rule 84.04(c), and his argument section similarly fails to provide citations to the record in violation of Rule 84.04(e). Absent proper citations to the record, we may not, of our own initiative, seine the record in search of materials to support Jones’ cause. Shields v. L&P Transp., LLC, 317 S.W.3d 654, 656 (Mo.App.S.D.2010). Engaging in a search for factual matter in the record to support an appellant’s claims would put this court in the unacceptable position of becoming an advocate for appellant. Eder v. Lawson’s Hardwood Floors, Inc., 403 S.W.3d 623, 625 (Mo.App.S.D.2012). For that reason, Jones’ failure to tie his alleged claims of legal error to specific factual matter from the record with specific citations, renders his point unreviewable. In re Marriage of Smith, 283 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009).

Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

GARY W. LYNCH, P.J.—CONCURS NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J.— CONCURS

1

. Jones failed to file with this Court, as part of the record on appeal, the motion to dismiss that is the subject of this appeal, in violation of Rule 81.12(d).

All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2016).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 S.W.3d 355, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eugene-k-jones-el-v-george-lombardi-defendants-respondents-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack