WILLIAM H. SYKES,
Employee-Plaintiff,
From the North Carolina
v. Industrial Commission
I.C. No. 106105
MOSS TRUCKING COMPANY, INC.,
Employer-Defendant,
and
PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC.,
Carrier-Defendant.
William H. Sykes, pro se, for plaintiff.
Morris, York, Williams, Surles & Barringer, L.L.P., by Stephen
Kushner, for defendants.
WYNN, Judge.
In plaintiff's previous appeal of this case, Sykes v. Moss
Trucking Co., Inc., 142 N.C. App. 391, 544 S.E.2d 28
(2001)(unpublished)(“Sykes I”), this Court pointed out “numerous
violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.” Indeed, this
Court stated: “Plaintiff has failed to present his questions inclear, concise and non-argumentative fashion, and has failed to
provide this Court with any legal basis for his arguments.” Id.
Notwithstanding his violations of the rules in Sykes I, we
exercised our discretion under Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure and considered the merits of that appeal.
Now, in a second appeal to this Court plaintiff again violates
the Rules of Appellate Procedure in several respects. First,
Plaintiff's appeal violates N.C. R. App. P. 29(j) which states:
Principal briefs filed in the North Carolina
Court of Appeals, whether filed by appellant,
appellee, or amicus curiae, formatted
according to Rule 26 and the Appendixes to
these Rules, shall be limited to 35 pages of
text, exclusive of subject index, tables of
authorities, and appendixes. Reply briefs, if
permitted by this Rule shall be limited to 15
pages of text.
Plaintiff submitted a 64 page brief, exceeding the allowable page
limit by 29 pages. Responding to Defendants' contention that his
appeal should be dismissed for this rule violation, Plaintiff
stated “Plaintiff did his best to summarize his case, knowing that
he had exceeded the 35 page limit, plaintiff previously apologized
to this Court when filing for the length of his Brief, also asking
the Court of Appeals to please accept Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief
. . ..” (emphasis supplied). Notwithstanding his apology for his
knowing rule violation, this Court has held “even pro se appellants
must adhere strictly to the [Appellate rules] or risk sanctions.”
Strauss v. Hunt, 140 N.C. App. 345, 348-49, 536 S.E.2d 636, 639
(2000); see also Bledsoe v. County of Wilkes, 135 N.C. App. 124,
125, 519 S.E.2d 316, 317 (1999)(stating “these rules apply toeveryone--whether acting pro se or being represented by all of the
five largest law firms in the State”).
Plaintiff has also submitted an affidavit to his brief which
contains additional facts. Such an affidavit is not allowed by our
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Moreover, Defendants, Moss Trucking, Inc. and Protective
Insurance Company, moves this Court to strike the record on appeal
because Plaintiff failed to comply with the directives of
Commissioner Laura Kranifeld Mavretic in the preparation of the
record on appeal. After Defendants objected to Plaintiff's
proposed record on appeal and submitted a proposed alternative
record on appeal, Commissioner Mavretic ordered on 26 March 2003:
the record on appeal is SETTLED in accordance
with Defendants' alternative proposed Record
on Appeal as modified below:
...
2. An exhibit to the Record on Appeal may
include, at plaintiff-appellant's discretion,
a copy of the Record on Appeal filed by
plaintiff-appellant in COA 00-344, William H.
Sykes v. Moss Trucking Company, Inc., [Sykes
I] which was filed with the Court of Appeals
for review in conjunction with the Court of
Appeal's decision filed in this action on 20
February 2001; ...
In all other respects, the Record on Appeal
shall be in accordance with Defendant's
alternative proposed Record on Appeal.
Plaintiff violated Commissioner Mavretic's order by including more
than 100 pages of material that was neither contained in
Defendants' proposed record on appeal nor the record on appeal in
COA00-344, the prior appeal before this Court. Additionally,Plaintiff included documents, which were ordered excluded from the
record on appeal in COA00-344 pursuant to Defendants' objections,
in the record on appeal in this case.
As stated earlier, the Rules of Appellate Procedure are
mandatory and failure to follow the rules subjects an appeal to
dismissal. Because of the numerous violations of the rules in this
appeal, and because Plaintiff violated the clear and direct order
of Commissioner Mavretic, we strike Plaintiff's record on appeal
and dismiss his appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 25(b) and 34(b)(3).
Dismissed.
Judges McGEE and TYSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***