California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Harris v. Supply, A148727 (Cal. App. 2017):
These are not mere technical requirements, but important rules of appellate procedure designed to alleviate the burden on the court by requiring litigants to present their cause systematically, so that the court "may be advised, as [it] read[s], of the exact question under consideration, instead of being compelled to extricate it from the mass." (Landa v. Steinberg (1932) 126 Cal.App. 324, 325.)
Perhaps most importantly, the incomprehensible nature of appellant's briefs makes it impossible for this court to discern what precise errors she is claiming were made by the trial judge, and how such errors were prejudicial. We are not required to search the record on our own seeking error. (Del Real v. City of Riverside (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 761, 768.)
We note that appellant appears before us in propria persona. Her unrepresented status in no way excuses the deficiencies in her briefs. (Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267 [" ' "the in propria persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney" ' "].) Appellant's self-represented status does not exempt her from the rules of appellate procedure or relieve her of her burden on appeal. Those representing themselves are afforded no additional leniency or immunity from the rules of appellate procedure simply because of their in
Page 3
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.