DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 23, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-17-00450-CV

JAMES T. CHAO, Appellant

V.

PLANO BUILDING STANDARD COMMISSION, CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-05450-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Evans, and Justice Brown

Opinion by Justice Brown

Pro se appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting appellee’s plea to the 

jurisdiction. After numerous extensions, appellant filed his brief on March 15, 2018. In an order 

dated March 27, 2018, we informed appellant his brief was deficient. Specifically, the brief is 

deficient in that, among other things, (1) it does not contain a concise statement of the case, the 

course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record 

references, (2) it does not concisely state all issues presented for review, (3) it does not contain a 

concise statement of facts supported by record references, (4) it does not contain a succinct, 

clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief, (5) the argument 

does not contain appropriate citations to authorities and to the record, and (6) it does not contain 

a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of the relief sought. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (d), 
–2–

(f), (g), (h), (i), and (j). We ordered appellant to file, by April 16, 2018, an amended brief 

correcting the noted deficiencies and cautioned him that failure to comply may result in the 

appeal being dismissed without further notice. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

Since this Court’s March 27 order, appellant has filed three motions to extend the time to 

file his amended brief. By order dated June 19, 2018, we granted appellant an extension and 

cautioned him that no further extension would be granted and that failure to comply may result in 

dismissal of the appeal without further notice. Appellant failed to comply. On July 16, 2018, he 

filed a motion for extension. 

Although individuals have the right to represent themselves as pro se litigants in civil 

cases, they are required to follow the same rules of appellate procedure that licensed attorneys 

are required to follow. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Appellate court judges are not responsible for “identifying 

possible trial court error” or favorable facts or law to support parties’ contentions. Id. 

Importantly, under rule 38.1(f), the court “must be able to discern what question[s] of law [it] 

will be answering.” Id. at 896. A brief fails if it does not articulate the issues to be answered by 

the court. Id. If a brief articulates the issues to be decided by the court, “then rule 38.1(i) calls 

for the brief to guide [the court] through the appellant’s argument with clear and understandable

statements of the contentions being made.” Id. Under rule 38.1(i), appellant’s argument must 

make direct references to facts in the record and applicable legal authority. Id. A brief fails 

under rule 38.1(i) if the court must speculate or guess as to the contentions being made or if 

record references are not provided. Id.

Appellant’s brief consists basically of three sentences and a request for an extension to 

file the remaining sections “due to server cyberspace attacks” and an allegation that “one of the 

clerk’s certifications is a misrepresentation.” The brief is admittedly incomplete. It does not 
–3–

contain any statement of facts supported by record references or any argument in support of the 

issues with citations to authorities and the record. Because appellant has not provided the Court 

with existing legal authority that can be applied to the facts of the case, the brief 

fails. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896.

Appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after 

having been given numerous opportunities to do so. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s July 16 

motion requesting an extension and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b),

(c).

170450F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES T. CHAO, Appellant

No. 05-17-00450-CV V.

PLANO BUILDING STANDARD 

COMMISSION, CITY OF PLANO, 

TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-05450-2016.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Evans 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of July, 2018.