State v. R. Pierce

Opinion

10/15/2024

0RUNA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Case Number: DA 24-0390

DA 24-0390

FILED

ROBERT S. PIERCE, QCT 15 2024 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of su ree ourt

Defendant and Appellant, State ofpMomntanCa

v. ORDER

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee.

After we rejected his Opening Brief for failure to comply with Rules 11 and 12 of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, Robert S. Pierce filed an "Amended Response to Order Dated 8/9/2024," which we deemed a Petition for Rehearing. Filed contemporaneous with this Order is a separate Order denying Pierce's Petition and striking from the record his "Response to Order Dated 8/9/2024," filed on August 29, 2024, and his "Amended Response to Order Dated 8/9/2024," filed on September 6, 2024.

On October 10, 2024, Pierce filed two pleadings: "Motion for Default Judgment for Failure to respond pursuant to Mt.R.App.P. 13(1)," (hereafter, "Motion for Default Judgment") and "Request to file a seperate [sic] appendix pursuant to Rule 12(5)" (hereafter, "Request to File a Separate Appendix") In his Motion for Default Judgment Pierce contends that the State was required to respond to his opening brief, which this Court rejected, within thirty days of his "Response to Order Dated 8/9/2024," which was filed with this Court on August 29, 2024. In his Request to File a Separate Appendix, Pierce requests to submit documents that were filed in his federal habeas corpus petition. Pierce asserts that the documents he requests us to review "suppliments [sic] the Appellants [sic] objection to the Order issued on 8/9/2024 and demonstarates [sic] that the appellant did, indeed, first introduce personal information, not redacted, in the Federal District Court."

For the reasons discussed in the Order Denying Petition for Rehearing, Pierce's Motion for Default Judgment is without merit. Pierce's opening brief was rejected by this Court. The opening brief having been rejected, there was nothing for the State to respond to and, accordingly, no basis for a default judgment based on a failure to respond. As for Pierce's Request to File a Separate Appendix, as we explained in the Order Denying his Petition for Rehearing, regardless of whether Pierce was required to redact sensitive information in his federal court filing, he is required to redact sensitive information— including birthdates—in original pleadings filed with this Court. Pierce's request to File a Separate Appendix is without merit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Pierce's Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. IT IS ORDERED that Pierce's Request to File a Separate Appendix is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to all parties of record.

DATED this IC day of October, 2024.

te14/t-e_L).

(6,

tO4 Justices