LANGAN v. DAVIS

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

MORGAN JOSEPH LANGAN, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

CHIP DAVIS, Treasurer Yavapai County, JUDD SIMMONS, Assessor
Yavapai County, MARY MALLORY, Chairman of the Yavapai County
Board of Supervisors, DENNIS MCGRANE, Yavapai County Attorney, all
in personam, Defendants/Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CV 26-0037
FILED 10-27-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. S1300CV202580464
The Honorable Michael P. McGill, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Morgan Joseph Langan, Cornville
Plaintiff/Appellant

Yavapai County Attorney’s Office, Prescott
By Dennis M. McGrane
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees

LANGAN v. DAVIS, et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Andrew Gaona joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Morgan Joseph Langan appeals the superior court’s denial of
his application for a writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, we
affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In November 2025, Langan filed a “Petition for Original
Jurisdiction Writ of Mandamus” making several requests tied to land he
believes he owns. The superior court treated the petition as the application
under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-2021, et seq., which governs
mandamus proceedings. The court denied the application. The court found
Langan did not allege an immediate and complete right to “quiet title in the
property, the release of excess tax funds, or any other relief tied to the
property” because a 2023 judgment had transferred title to the property to
Arapaho, LLC. That judgment “expressly foreclosed all of [Langan]’s right,
title, and interest in the property,” thereby extinguishing his ownership
interest. Therefore, the court found Langan failed to establish a basis for a
writ of mandamus.

¶3 Langan timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. Section 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 Preliminarily, we note the defendants, five Yavapai County
officials, did not file an answering brief. “When debatable issues exist and
an appellee fails to file an answering brief, we may consider such failure a
confession of reversible error.” Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259 ¶ 9 (App.
2014). But the confession of error doctrine is not applicable here because
Langan does not raise any debatable issues. Carter v. State ex rel. Eyman, 5
Ariz. App. 415, 415 (1967).

2

LANGAN v. DAVIS, et al.
Decision of the Court

I. Langan Waived All Issues on Appeal by Failing to File a Brief that
Complies with ARCAP 13.

¶5 The Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”)
require that an appellant’s opening brief contain a “statement of the case”
that concisely states the nature of the case and the course of the proceedings,
and a “statement of facts” relevant to the issues presented for review, each
with appropriate references to the record. ARCAP 13(a)(4)–(5). The brief
must also contain an “argument” setting forth appellant’s “contentions
concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for
each contention.” ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). The argument must have citations to
applicable legal authorities, references to the record, and a statement of the
appropriate standard of review. ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A)–(B).

¶6 “Self-represented litigants must . . . comply with relevant
rules of procedural and substantive law.” Matter of Est. of Acciavatti, __ Ariz.
__, __ ¶ 7, 2026 WL 2041963, at *1 (App. July 15, 2026) (cleaned up) (citing
cases). Further, courts hold pro se litigants to the same requirements to
follow the rules as represented parties and do not afford them special
leniency. See Smith v. Rabb, 95 Ariz. 49, 53 (1963); Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz.
76, 83–84 ¶ 24 (2017). An appellant who “fails to make a bona fide and
reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules will waive issues and
arguments” not supported by legal authority, adequate explanation, or
citations to the record. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522 ¶ 8 (App. 2022)
(quoting In re Aubuchon, 223 Ariz. 62, 64–65 ¶ 6 (2013)). Moreover, we do
not consider or accept “bald assertion[s] . . . offered without elaboration or
citation to any . . . legal authority.” In re U.S. Currency in Amount of
$26,980.00, 199 Ariz. 291, 299 ¶ 28 (App. 2000).

¶7 Here, Langan’s opening brief states the case was commenced
“to compel . . . Yavapai County officials to perform the required ministerial
duty of correcting undisputed errors appearing on the tax rolls.” Langan
offers almost no factual context for his claims. He does not concisely explain
the nature of the case or any relevant background. He does not provide
appropriate references to the record. To clarify the nature of the case, he
asserts “Respondents are specifically required by law to correct errors on
the record.” But the only record “error” he points to in his brief is the
classification of “his private land” as mixed use. At no point does he
identify the land at issue, dates or details of the disputed records, or the
significance of mixed-use classification in this case. And rather than
developing legal arguments or explaining his contentions, Langan sets out
vague, unsubstantiated conclusory assertions, and then repeats those
assertions. He does not cite supportive statutes, case law, or any other

3

LANGAN v. DAVIS, et al.
Decision of the Court

authorities for his contentions. See ARCAP 13(a)(7). Therefore, Langan does
not properly present his arguments as required by ARCAP 13 and he has
not made a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort” to comply with
ARCAP 13’s requirements. Ramos, 252 Ariz. at 522 ¶ 8. Accordingly, he has
waived any issues he may have wished to submit for our review. See Ramos,
252 Ariz. at 522–23 ¶¶ 9–11.

II. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Denying the Writ of
Mandamus.

¶8 Even if he had not waived all issues, Langan’s appeal would
still fail.

¶9 We review the denial of a writ of mandamus for abuse of
discretion. Forszt v. Rodriguez, 212 Ariz. 263, 265 ¶ 9 (App. 2006). Mandamus
is an “extraordinary remedy” requiring that the petitioner has an
immediate and complete right to the relief sought, that “the respondent had
a legal duty to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel and that
there is an absence of another adequate remedy.” Sines v. Holden, 89 Ariz.
207, 209 (1961).

¶10 Langan’s unsubstantiated, conclusory, and mistaken claim to
possess “undisputed allodial title” in the property is insufficient to support
issuance of a writ of mandamus. Langan asserts, without citation, that the
county officials are legally required to correct certain tax rolls to classify the
use of “his” property as “not mixed.” But as the court noted, Langan’s own
allegations defeat his claims. Specifically, Langan acknowledges a 2023
judgment “granted the entirety of Petitioner’s land to a private third party.”
Langan had an adequate remedy to challenge that judgment by appeal but
failed to pursue it. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding
Langan had no immediate and complete right to any relief tied to the
property.

¶11 Because Langan does not demonstrate a right to the relief
requested, the court did not err in denying the writ of mandamus.

4

LANGAN v. DAVIS, et al.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm the superior court’s denial of the writ of
mandamus.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5