Low v. State Dept. of Corrections, 26333.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Phillip R. Garrison
• Citation: 164 S.W.3d 566
• Parties: Richard Owen LOW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Southeast Correctional Center, Probation and Parole, Respondent-Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. 26333.,26333.
• Decision Date: 16 June 2005

164 S.W.3d 566 Richard Owen LOW, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Southeast Correctional Center, Probation and Parole, Respondent-Respondent. No. 26333. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One. June 16, 2005.

Page 567

Richard Owen Low, pro se.

No appearance for Respondent.

PHILLIP R. GARRISON, Presiding Judge.

Richard Owen Low ("Appellant") is pro se in this appeal. He is an inmate incarcerated at the Southeast Correctional Center, Charleston, Missouri who, on June 2, 2004, filed a petition for a temporary and/or permanent restraining order against the Department of Corrections ("DOC") in the Circuit Court of Mississippi County. In his petition, Appellant claims

Page 568

that funds were unlawfully being removed from his canteen fund by the DOC causing him financial hardship in obtaining postage, writing materials, and personal hygiene products. The trial court entered a judgment denying Appellant's petition. This appeal followed.

Due to multiple violations of Rule 84.04, we dismiss the appeal. A violation of Rule 84.04 is grounds for us to dismiss an appeal. Stickley v. Auto Credit, Inc., 53 S.W.3d 560, 562 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). Both pro se appellants and attorneys are held to the same procedural rules, thus pro se appellants do not receive preferential treatment regarding compliance with those rules. Hardin v. State, 51 S.W.3d 129, 130 (Mo.App. W.D.2001).

Appellant's sole point relied on is as follows:

The motion court clearly erred in not granting relief to Appellant herein. Appellant had demonstrated and invoke [sic] principles of substantive law which entitle pleader relief, [sic] petition stands as valid statement of Appellant's claims. Respondent's [sic] have presented no evidence to refute or oppose Appellant's allegations herein. Respondent's [sic] have, and continue their unauthorized removal of funds from Appellants canteen account. This action is in violatson [sic] of Appellant's constitutional rights and denied Appellant due process of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Appellant's canteen account is a protected property interest. Having determined that a protected interest exists, the only question left for the trial court was to decide is [sic] what process is due. The trial court failed to appropriately determined [sic] by Appellant's petition for temporary and/or permanent restraning [sic] order to stop the Respondent's [sic] from causing additional irreparable injury to Appellant. The trial courts [sic] ruling is [sic] clearly erroneous decision based upon an unreasonable application of state and federal law and the evidence put before the trial court as they [sic] existed.

Rule 84.04(d)¹ sets the guidelines for an appellant regarding his points on appeal. It states:

(1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall:

(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges;

(B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and

(C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: "The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error]."

Here, Appellant's "Point Relied On" fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04(d). Appellant's point does not identify the rule of law the trial court should have applied, nor does it specify the evidentiary basis supporting the application of the rule of law suggested. See Rule 84.04(d)(1). Further, Appellant's

Page 569

point does not intelligibly identify the issues he is pursuing on appeal. Finally, Appellant's point relied on violates the proscription in Rule 84.04(d)(4) that "[a]bstract statements of law, standing alone, do not comply with this rule." We cannot begin to interpret Appellant's point as stated because we would be forced...