Full Opinion

11/10/2026 DA 26-0167 Case Number: DA 26-0167 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2026 MT 272N SHANDELL WARREN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SANDRA DEWEY, Defendant and Appellee. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADV 2023-630 Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Shandell Warren, Self-Represented, Helena, Montana For Appellee: Sandra Dewey, Self-Represented, Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 9, 2026 Decided: November 10, 2026 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Justice Katherine M. Bidegaray delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Shandell Warren (Warren) appeals from the January 13, 2025 order of the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, which dismissed Warren’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failing to state a cognizable claim entitling her to relief. We affirm because Warren has not developed an appellate argument addressing why the District Court erred in concluding that her complaint failed to state a claim. ¶3 On February 28, 2022, Warren and Sandra Dewey (Dewey) had a disputed interaction in downtown Helena while Warren was walking her service dog, and Dewey was working for the Helena parking commission. ¶4 Dewey obtained an order of protection against Warren, which expired on October 22, 2022. The City also charged Warren with disorderly conduct arising from the February incident and later dismissed the charge. ¶5 Warren initially filed a complaint against Dewey on August 29, 2023, with the Lewis and Clark County Justice Court, but the Justice Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Warren refiled her complaint with the District Court on September 27, 2023. She alleged that Dewey made a 2 false assault accusation after Warren complained to the parking commission about Dewey kicking her service dog, that Dewey’s supervisor directed the accusation, and that Dewey later sought an order of protection. Warren sought $4,230 in damages from Dewey, including legal expenses, filing fees, and service costs arising from the criminal and protection-order proceedings. Dewey denied the principal allegations and included in her answer a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. She filed no separate supporting brief. ¶6 In its January 13, 2025 order dismissing Warren’s complaint with prejudice under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the District Court stated that Warren cited no legal theory or case law supporting her claims for money damages and attorney fees incurred in the criminal and protection-order proceedings. The court concluded that her allegations did not state a cognizable claim. On February 24, 2025, Warren attempted to appeal the dismissal by filing a notice of appeal with the District Court on a form directing the appeal to that court. The record contains no ruling on that filing. In a motion dated February 5, 2026, Warren requested a formal response to her attempted appeal. The District Court denied that motion on February 9, 2026, stating that the matter was closed. Warren then filed a notice of appeal in this Court on March 9, 2026. ¶7 Although Warren’s March 9, 2026 notice of appeal designates the February 9, 2026 denial, the accompanying documents include the January 13, 2025 dismissal and her earlier notice challenging that dismissal. Read together, the filings make clear that Warren seeks review of the dismissal of her complaint. No notice of entry under M. R. Civ. P. 77(d) was served, so the thirty-day appeal period had not begun to run. M. R. App. P. 4(5)(a)(i). Any 3 failure to enter a separate judgment does not prevent review: the 150-day period under M. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B) had elapsed before this appeal. Under these circumstances, we treat Warren’s designation of the later order as a technical error and construe the appeal to encompass the dismissal. See Wilhelm v. Owens Enters., Inc., 242 Mont. 285, 288, 790 P.2d 467, 469 (1990). This construction does not bring before us the protection order or judgments entered in separate proceedings. ¶8 An appellant must present an argument explaining the claimed error, with reasons and citations to the authorities and record relied on. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(g). We are not obligated to develop an appellant’s argument, guess the appellant’s precise position, or supply legal analysis supporting that position. McCulley v. Am. Land Title Co., 2013 MT 89, ¶ 20, 369 Mont. 433, 300 P.3d 679. ¶9 We may give pro se litigants latitude, but that latitude must not prejudice the other party, and we reasonably expect all litigants, pro se or not, to follow procedural rules. In re Marriage of Boeshans, 2025 MT 187, ¶ 21, 423 Mont. 450, 573 P.3d 1226. ¶10 On appeal, Warren challenges the dismissal of her complaint along with the protection-order proceeding and alleges judicial bias against three different judges.1 She asks this Court to review the evidence, order a hearing before an impartial judge, and vacate judgments entered in other proceedings. ¶11 Warren also restates her allegations that Dewey made false accusations in retaliation for her complaint to the parking commission, that those accusations resulted in criminal 1 Warren’s complaints about Judges Swingley and Piskolich involve separate proceedings that are not before us in this appeal. 4 proceedings and legal expenses, and that she seeks an opportunity to pursue compensation. But she does not develop an appellate argument explaining why the allegations in her complaint were sufficient to state a claim or why the District Court erred in concluding otherwise. Her assertions that the evidence supports her accusations and that she deserves compensation do not supply that analysis. ¶12 Although Warren invokes judicial bias and due process and seeks a hearing, she does not develop a legal argument explaining how those assertions establish error in the dismissal under review. We decline to supply that analysis on her behalf. McCulley, ¶ 20. ¶13 Because Warren has not developed an appellate argument demonstrating error in the District Court’s determination that her complaint failed to state a claim, we affirm the dismissal. We do not decide whether her complaint states a claim for malicious prosecution. ¶14 We decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. Settled law controls the issues necessary to decide this appeal. Our decision presents no issue of first impression and does not establish new precedent or modify existing precedent. ¶15 Affirmed. /S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY We Concur: /S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON /S/ JIM RICE 5