SANCHEZ v GREAT FALLS PUBLIC SCHOO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 03-338 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2003 MT 301N JASOOG SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GREAT FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, Cause No. ADV-02-969 The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Jasoog Sanchez, Great Falls, Montana, Pro Se For Respondent: Jean E. Faure; Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: October 9, 2003 Decided: November 4, 2003 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court. ¶2 Jasoog Sanchez, appearing pro se, appeals from the Order RE: Motion to Dismiss entered by the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. The issue is whether the District Court properly dismissed Sanchez s petition for judicial review as untimely pursuant to § 49-2-501(4), MCA. We affirm. ¶3 On May 9, 2002, Sanchez filed a complaint with the Human Rights Bureau (Bureau), alleging Great Falls Public Schools (GFPS) had discriminated against her because of her race, national origin or color. The Bureau dismissed the complaint on timeliness grounds. The Human Rights Commission (Commission) affirmed the dismissal, noting that more than 180 days elapsed between the last date of alleged discrimination and the filing date. Sanchez petitioned the District Court for judicial review, and GFPS moved to dismiss. The District Court concluded the Commission properly dismissed the complaint because Sanchez had not timely filed it with the Bureau. ¶4 On appeal, Sanchez raises several issues. She does not cite to any authorities in support of her arguments in the opening brief. An appellant s opening brief must contain citations to authorities in support of arguments. Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P. We do not 2 address arguments that lack citations to legal authorities. Saari v. Winter Sports, Inc., 2003 MT 31, ¶ 14, 314 Mont. 212, ¶ 14, 64 P.3d 1038, ¶ 14 (citation omitted); In re L.S., 2003 MT 12, ¶ 14, 314 Mont. 42, ¶ 14, 63 P.3d 497, ¶ 14 (citation omitted). Therefore, we do n o t consider Sanchez s contentions. ¶5 Affirmed. /S/ KARLA M. GRAY We concur: /S/ JIM REGNIER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ PATRICIA COTTER 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.