COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
CHARL I E RAY TAYL OR, Appellant,
v.
SHI RL EY J. M EADOR, F OOD SERVI CE, MRG-I V, GARY L . CURRI E, ASSI STANT WARDEN, AMY M. MARSHAL L , FOO D SERVI CE MGR-I I I , PRES TON T. MCFA RL AND, CAPTAI N, KENNET H M. PUTNAM, JR ., CAPTAI N, FRAN K V. HEL M, MAJ OR, MI CHAEL

G. MANESS, CAPL AI

N I I , AND B RAD L IVI

NGSTON, EXECUTI VE DI RECTOR, Appellee s. § § § § § § § § § § No. 08-10-00017- CV

Appea l from the 88th J udicial District Court of Tyler County , Texas (TC# 21, 452)

O P I N I O N Mr. Charlie Ta

ylor appe als from the tria l court’s orde r dismissing his case under Chapte r Four teen of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedie s Code. Mr. Tay lor’s brief contains five issues challeng ing se vera l differ ent orde rs enter ed in the trial c ourt, as we ll as various ac tions taken by the Texas Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice (“ TDCJ ”). B eca use Mr. Ta

ylor’s brief

does not comply with the require ments of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 38.1, the issues pre sented will be overr

uled as wa ived, and we will affirm the tria l court’s dismissal. Mr. Tay lor is incarc erated in the Gib-L ewis Unit of the Te x as De partment of Criminal J ustice’s Institut ional Division. On September 9, 2009, Mr. Ta ylor filed a “ Motion for Hate Crime Reporting ,” re questing an injunction ag ainst TDCJ officia ls, for their pr ejudicial beha viorin failing to cre ate a n individualiz ed mea l-schedule and to org anize specia liz ed food pr epar ations to acc ommodate Mr. Ta

ylor’s re ligious pra ctices. The trial court r efe rre d the ca se to the Attorney Gene ral’s O ffice for de termination whethe r Mr. Ta ylor had c omplied with the require ments for an inmate litigation under Texas Civil P rac tice and Re medies Code Chapter Four teen. See T E X .C I V .P R A C .&RE M .C O D E AN N . § 14.002 (Ve rnon 2002). In his subsequent “Motion for L eave To File F or Petition For Civil Ri g hts Compl aint,” Mr. Ta ylor soug ht “ac tual damag e in the amount of pursua

nt, to Five-hundr ed-thousand dollar s ($500,000.00) in United States of A merica
curr ency ,” for

his alleg ed injuries, in addition to $25,000, in puniti ve dama g es fr om eac h of the individually

names de fenda

nts. On Octobe r 26, 2009, the attorney g ener al filed a

response to the trial court’ s order reque sting a

n evalua tion of Mr. Tay

lor’s filing s in light of the statutory require ments for inmate litigation. The attorney

g ener al conc luded that Mr. Ta ylor’s suit should be dismis sed for failure to comply with Chapter F ourtee n beca use: (1) he failed to file a n aff idavit list ing a

ny previous pro se litigation, other tha n case s under the T exas Family Code; and (2) he fa iled to exhaust hi s administrative re medies prior to filingsuit. SeeT E X .C I V .P R A C .&RE M .C O D E AN N . § 14.004(a) and § 14.005 (V ernon 2002) . The trial c ourt enter ed a written order dismiss ing Mr . Taylor’s ca se for f ailure to c omply

with Chapter F ourtee n on October 28, 2009. Mr. Tay lor’s appe llate brief

includes five numbe red issues. The statement of these issues constitutes more than two of the brief’ s nine pag es. As we understand the m, Mr. Tay lor’s complaints can be summarized as follows: (1) the tria l court er red by ref using to issue a

n injunction ag ainst the TDCJ in response to Mr. Ta ylor’s “Motion for H ate Crime Repor ting;” ( 2) the trial cour

t erre d by dismiss ing the case befor e Mr. Ta ylor was a

ble to respond to the attorney
-2-g ener al’s re commendation; (3) the court e rre d by order ing Mr . Taylor to pay court c osts related to the lawsuit; (4) an injunction must issue to force the TDCJ to reviewadministrative seg reg ation case s, such as Mr. Ta y lor’s, eve ry

ninety day s; and (5) the trial court violated Mr. Tay lor’s rig ht to due proce ss by failing to provide him with appointed counsel. I n contra st to it s leng thy

statement of issues, the br ief’s a rgument section consists of a single para g raph in whic h Mr. Tay lor conc ludes that the trial cour t dismi ssed the ca se base d on false statements and misrepr esentations by the attorne y

g ener al. He c alls the Court’s attention to
sever al motions filed after the trial cour

t entere d its dism issal order, w hich included c opies of “Step One & Two Off

ender g rieva nce f orms.” In his pray er f

or re lief, Mr. Ta

ylor reque sts that this Court reinstate the ca se and r emand it to the trial cour t “due that Appe llant was in compliance with Chapter F ourtee n . . . .” The brief omits any ref ere nce to a

standard of

revie w, and fa ils to di scuss applica ble Texas prec edent r elated to dismissal order s in the context of inmate litigation. I nitially we must note that pro se litigants ar e held to the same standar ds as license d attorney s and must comply with all applicable r

ules of proc edure
. Sweed v . City of El Paso , 195 S.W .3d 784, 786 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006, no pet.) ; Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co. , 126 S.W .3d 676, 677 (Tex.App.--Da llas 2004, pet. denied) . A pro se litigant is requir ed to prope rly prese nt his
case on appea l just as he is require d to do at the trial cour t. Strange , 126 S.W .3d at 678. An appellate court ha s no duty to perfor m an independe nt reviewof the re cord a nd applicable law to deter mine whether

there was e rror . Strange , 126 S.W .3d at 678. Were w e to do so, eve n on behalf of a pro se litigant, we would be for ced to stra y from our r ole as ne utral adjudicators and become an advoc ate f

or that par

ty . See P lummer v . Ree ves , 93 S.W .3d 930, 931 (Tex.App.--

-3-Amarillo 2003, pet. denie d). When revie wing a civil matter, a n appellate court ha s no discretion to consider a

n issue not raised in the a ppellant’s brie f eve n if the ends of justice so require
. Bankhe ad v. Maddox , 135 S.W .3d 162, 163 (Tex.App.--Ty ler 2004, no pe t.). Simi larly , we cannot spe culate a s to the substance of the issues appe llant urg es us to addre ss but fails to include in his brief. See Strange , 126 S.W .3d at 678. The Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure r equire an appe llant’s brief to c oncisely state all issues or points presente d for r eview. T E X .R.A P P .P. 38.1(f). An issue pr esente d in an appellant’ s brief is suff

icient if it directs the attention of the appe llate cour t to the error

about which the c omplaint is m ade. See M addox , 135 S.W .3d at 163-64. Appe llant’s brief must also contain a c lear

and conc ise argument containingappropr iate citations to authority and to the
rec ord. See T E X .R.A P P .P. 38.1(h). This require ment is not satisfied by conclusory

statements, unsupported by

leg al citations. Sweed , 195 S.W .3d at 786. Fa ilure to cite leg al authority or provide substantive a

naly sis of an issue wa ives the complaint. See Ley va v. Ley va , 960 S.W .2d 732, 734 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, no wr it). As is refle cted in the de scription above, Mr . Tay lor’s brief fails to meet the ba sic require ments of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 38.1, in that it fails to provide a c lear and succinc t statement of issues pre sented for revie w, and f

urther f ails to provide an a

ppropriate leg al argument for the r elief Mr . Tay lor reque sts. I ssues One through Five a re the ref ore ove rruled, a s they have be en wa ived due to inade quate br iefing
. Havingoverr

uled all of Appe llant’s issues, we a ffirm the tria l court’s dismissal.

-4-September 29, 2010 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
.

-5-