Charles Beard v. Arvin W. Glass, M2016-02395-COA-R3-CV

Background

Charles Beard, pro se, sued Arvin W. Glass (Grandmaster) and the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge claiming wrongful expulsion, defamation, reputational harm, and seeking damages and reinstatement.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, characterizing the dispute as an intra-fraternity matter.
The trial court held a hearing and dismissed Beard’s complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction.
Beard appealed and filed a pro se appellate brief (titled as brief plus petition for summary judgment) and an amendment, which lacked required form and substance.
The Court of Appeals found Beard’s brief failed to comply with Tenn. R. App. P. 27 and Tenn. Ct. App. R. 6 (missing table of authorities, statement of issues, statement of the case, citations to record and authority, and adequate argument) and deemed the issues waived.
The appeal was dismissed and the case remanded for collection of trial-court costs; costs on appeal were assessed to Beard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a claim for wrongful expulsion and defamation	Beard contended he was wrongfully expelled and defamed and sought reinstatement and damages	Defendants argued Beard failed to plead a short, plain statement with sufficient specificity and that the dispute is an intra-fraternity matter beyond court jurisdiction	Dismissed by trial court for failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; appellate court did not reach merits due to briefing defects
Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over an intra-fraternity dispute	Beard implied the court could adjudicate his removal and related harms	Defendants asserted the matter is internal to the lodge and nonjusticiable	Trial court found lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; appellate court affirmed dismissal procedural posture but dismissed appeal on briefing grounds
Whether deficiencies in appellant’s brief warrant waiver/dismissal on appeal	Beard filed a pro se brief without required components and without citations	Defendants relied on procedural rules requiring compliance and argued issues are waived if brief is deficient	Court held Beard’s briefing failures (no table of authorities, no statement of issues/case, no citations to record or authority) waived the issues and supported dismissal of the appeal
Whether courts should excuse pro se litigants from procedural rules	Beard’s filings suggested entitlement to lenient treatment as pro se	Defendants relied on precedent that pro se litigants must follow same procedural rules as represented parties	Court reiterated that pro se status does not excuse compliance and refused to act as Beard’s counsel; affirmed waiver/dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (pro se litigants are entitled to fair treatment but must follow procedures)
Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants not excused from same substantive and procedural rules)
Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (pro se litigant cannot shift burden of litigation to the court)
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to reference the record and cite authority in brief can constitute waiver)
Crowe v. Birmingham & N.W. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.2d 781 (Tenn. 1928) (Supreme Court will not find error when appellate rules are not followed)
Murray v. Miracle, 457 S.W.3d 399 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (court will not create arguments or issues for pro se litigants)
Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (skeletal argument that is mere assertion does not preserve a claim)
Gray v. Stillman White Co., 522 A.2d 737 (R.I. 1987) (noting the heavy burden on pro se litigants who invoke court procedures)
Duchow v. Whalen, 872 S.W.2d 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (failure to comply with appellate rules waives issues)