M.E. v. R.S.

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

M.E. v. R.S.

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 2026

DocketCAAP-25-0000031

StatusPublished

This text of M.E. v. R.S. (M.E. v. R.S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.E. v. R.S., (hawapp 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-APR-2026 08:17 AM Dkt. 58 ODMR NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

M.E., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.S., Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1DV191006856)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of self-represented Defendant-Appellant R.S.'s April 20, 2026 Renewed Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket 54), which is construed as a second motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 2026 order denying the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Motion), the papers in support, and the record, it appears that: (1) R.S. filed the notice of appeal on January 16, 2025. The court's March 18, 2026 order denied R.S's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and stated that within 10 days, R.S. "shall pay the filing fees in the full amount to the Supreme Court Clerk's Office[,]" and "[f]ailure to pay the filing fees may result in the appeal being dismissed." (2) On April 6, 2026, the court denied R.S.'s motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 2026 order. (3) The Motion is unauthorized. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40(e) ("Only one motion for reconsideration may be filed by any party[.]"). NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) R.S. has not complied with the March 18, 2026 order and the April 6, 2026 order denying reconsideration, the time for compliance has expired, and R.S. has not paid the appellate filing fees. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is denied as unauthorized. See HRAP Rule 40(e). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. See HRAP Rule 24(c) ("Failure of the unsuccessful movant to pay the unpaid filing fees or to give security for costs shall not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground for such action as the appellate court having jurisdiction over the appeal deems appropriate, and may include dismissal of the appeal."). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 2026. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-APR-2026 08:17 AM Dkt. 58 ODMR NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

M.E., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.S., Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1DV191006856)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of self-represented Defendant-Appellant R.S.'s April 20, 2026 Renewed Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket 54), which is construed as a second motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 2026 order denying the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Motion), the papers in support, and the record, it appears that: (1) R.S. filed the notice of appeal on January 16, 2025. The court's March 18, 2026 order denied R.S's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and stated that within 10 days, R.S. "shall pay the filing fees in the full amount to the Supreme Court Clerk's Office[,]" and "[f]ailure to pay the filing fees may result in the appeal being dismissed." (2) On April 6, 2026, the court denied R.S.'s motion for reconsideration of the March 18, 2026 order. (3) The Motion is unauthorized. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40(e) ("Only one motion for reconsideration may be filed by any party[.]"). NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) R.S. has not complied with the March 18, 2026 order and the April 6, 2026 order denying reconsideration, the time for compliance has expired, and R.S. has not paid the appellate filing fees. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is denied as unauthorized. See HRAP Rule 40(e). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. See HRAP Rule 24(c) ("Failure of the unsuccessful movant to pay the unpaid filing fees or to give security for costs shall not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground for such action as the appellate court having jurisdiction over the appeal deems appropriate, and may include dismissal of the appeal."). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 30, 2026. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

M.E. v. R.S., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/me-v-rs-hawapp-2026.