Opinion issued March 8, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00051-CV

———————————

PATRICIA POWERS, Appellant

V.

MICHAELS HOUSE, QUIRCUS WILLIAM "BILL" GRIFFIN AND 

CAROL PERRY ROSENBAUM, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 14-28442

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Patricia Powers, appeals from an order dismissing her claims for 

want of prosecution.1 We affirm.

 

1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

District of Texas to this Court pursuant to its docket equalization powers. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013) (“The supreme court may order cases 
2

Background

Powers filed suit in small claims court for damages based on claims of 

illegal eviction, threats, and defamation. The justice court entered a take-nothing 

judgment and Powers appealed to the Montgomery County Court at Law. The 

county court’s Docket Control Order set the case for trial on December 8, 2014,

and provided for a call-in announcement docket on the Tuesday prior to trial, 

which was December 2, 2014. This call-in announcement docket required the 

parties to contact the court coordinator by telephone to make trial announcements 

by noon. In its order of dismissal, the court noted that Powers, after being notified 

of the call-in docket, failed to call in her trial announcements. Thus, the court 

ordered Powers’ pleadings stricken and dismissed her case for want of prosecution. 

Powers appeals. 

Analysis

The first page of Powers’ 15-page brief is a copy of her notice of appeal, 

which states that she “denies knowledge of a hearing in the COUNTY COURT 

NO. 2, the Appellant denies contact with this lovely court.” We construe this as a 

complaint that Powers was not given notice that she was required to appear 

 

transferred from one court of appeals to another at any time that, in the opinion of the 

supreme court, there is good cause for the transfer.”). We are unaware of any conflict 

between precedent from the Court of Appeals of the Ninth District and that of this Court 

on the relevant issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
3

telephonically on December 2, 2014. But, other than this bare assertion, Powers 

presents no argument, authorities, or citations to the record supporting this “issue.” 

Rule 38.1(i) requires appellate briefs to contain “clear and concise argument 

for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the 

record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Although we must interpret this requirement 

liberally, see Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 

427 (Tex. 2004), a brief that does not contain any citations to authorities or to the 

record for a given issue waives that issue. Abdelnour v. Mid Nat’l Holdings, Inc., 

190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Trammell v. 

Frost Nat’l Bank, No. 01–05–00216–CV, 2006 WL 3513596, at *1–2 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 7, 2006, no pet.). 

Furthermore, pro se litigants are held to the same standard as attorneys and 

must comply with all rules of pleading and procedure. See Morris v. Am. Home 

Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 32, 36 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, 

no pet.). Applying a different set of rules to pro se litigants would give them an 

unfair advantage over those litigants who are represented by counsel. See id.

Although we liberally construe Powers’ brief, we cannot make her 

arguments for her. See Lee v. Lemons, Nos. 01–15–00208–CV & 01–15–00701–

CV, 2016 WL 398605, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 2, 2016, no pet. 

h.) (citing Jordan v. Jefferson Cty., 153 S.W.3d 670, 676 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 
4

2004, pet. denied)). Because Powers has not presented argument, authority, or 

citations to the record that support her contention, her issue regarding notice is 

waived. See Franz v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist., 35 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Blagoev v. Hinderman, No. 01–02–01336–CV, 

2005 WL 1415331, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 16, 2005, no pet).

The remainder of Powers’ brief includes a document addressed to this Court

in which Powers complains of several purported errors in the justice court. These 

complaints relate to the justice court proceeding and judgment, and not to the 

county court judgment that is the subject of this appeal. Powers challenges the 

justice court’s actions and attaches exhibits, including a rental agreement, a bank 

transaction statement, copies of checks, and transcriptions of text messages Powers 

claims she received from one of the appellees.

We have no jurisdiction to consider issues challenging the justice court 

judgment. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a) (West Supp. 2015) (court of 

appeals has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within its district of which the 

district court or county courts have jurisdiction). Thus, we overrule these issues.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Huddle.