Enforcement of Appellate Procedure Compliance for Pro Se Litigants: Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department (2025 WY 49)

Introduction

In Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department, 2025 WY 49, the Wyoming Supreme Court addressed the procedural obligations of a pro se appellant in the appellate process. Daniel Charles Hemmer, proceeding without counsel, sued the City of Casper Police Department, two of its officers, and the Natrona County Detention Center (NCDC) after his arrest and detention for felony theft. He alleged, among other claims, that his warrantless, probable-cause-free arrest amounted to kidnapping under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-201. Following motions under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c), the district court dismissed his amended complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of timely notice under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. Hemmer appealed, but his pro se appellate brief failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure (“W.R.A.P.”) and offered no cogent legal argument or record designation. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Wyoming Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Gray, summarily affirmed the district court’s dismissal. It held that:

• Pro se litigants are entitled to leniency but must comply with appellate rules on form and substance (citing Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161; Crittenden v. Crittenden, 2024 WY 52; McInerney v. Kramer, 2023 WY 108).
• Hemmer’s brief violated multiple W.R.A.P. provisions: no tables of contents or authorities, no statement of issues, no statement of the case or applicable standard of review, no record designation, and no appendix with the appealed order.
• Hemmer failed to present any substantive, authority-supported argument on his claims against NCDC, the City defendants, or the individual officers.
• Under W.R.A.P. 1.03(a), the Court exercised its discretion to summarily affirm when a brief flouts the rules and lacks cogent argument.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a line of decisions underscoring the requirement that even pro se appellants must adhere to procedural norms:

• Anderle v. State, 2022 WY 161, 522 P.3d 151: Confirmed that pro se parties receive some leniency but must substantially comply with appellate rules.
• Crittenden v. Crittenden, 2024 WY 52, 547 P.3d 977: Reiterated W.R.A.P. 1.02’s mandate of rule-based fairness and the Court’s power under W.R.A.P. 1.03(a) to refuse to consider noncompliant briefs.
• McInerney v. Kramer, 2023 WY 108, 537 P.3d 1146: Emphasized that summary affirmance is appropriate when an appellant fails to designate the record or supply cogent argument.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be distilled into two pillars:

1. Procedural Compliance: W.R.A.P. 7.01 sets out mandatory contents for a brief—title page information, tables, statement of issues, statement of the case, standard of review, and appendix. Hemmer omitted all these elements. W.R.A.P. 3.05(b) requires appellants to designate the record; Hemmer did not.
2. Substantive Argument: Even if the Court strained to find issues, Hemmer’s brief contained only conclusory assertions and cited no Wyoming authority for his kidnapping, false imprisonment, or negligence claims. His reliance on McGuire v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) was inapt and unsupported by any Wyoming law.

Because Hemmer failed in both respects, the Court invoked W.R.A.P. 1.03(a) to summarily affirm the district court without reaching the merits of his underlying civil claims.

Impact

Hemmer establishes a clear precedent in Wyoming:

• Pro se litigants must furnish appellate briefs that substantially comply with W.R.A.P.; summary affirmance is an available remedy for noncompliance.
• Courts will not excuse fundamental procedural lapses or fill in gaps in argumentation, even when a party proceeds without counsel.
• Appellate courts retain discretion under W.R.A.P. 1.03(a) to dismiss or affirm noncompliant appeals, preserving judicial efficiency and rule uniformity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Affirmance: A procedural shortcut where an appellate court, without full briefing or oral argument, affirms a lower court’s ruling because the appellant’s brief flouts procedural rules or lacks legal merit.
Pro Se Leniency: Lowered expectations for unrepresented parties, balanced against the need for orderly and fair appellate practices.
Notice Under Governmental Claims Act: A statutory prerequisite requiring plaintiffs to timely notify government entities of potential claims before filing suit; failure to do so bars civil actions for governmental defendants.

Conclusion

Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department reinforces that appellate procedure is not a mere formality—compliance is mandatory, even for pro se litigants. By affirming the dismissal on procedural grounds, the Wyoming Supreme Court underscores the importance of structuring briefs in conformity with W.R.A.P., presenting designated records, and supporting arguments with pertinent authority. This decision will guide both attorneys and self-represented parties in future Wyoming appeals, ensuring that the appellate process remains orderly, efficient, and grounded in established rules.