COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Marsha Bennett v. Raymond P. Jenkins, Walter Lucas, Ceasar 

Moore, Jr., Juan Sanchez Munoz, and Renu Khator

Appellate case number: 01-21-00557-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-67065

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Marsha Bennett, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s September 13, 

2021 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction, motion to dismiss, and motion for summary 

judgment of appellees, Raymond P. Jenkins, Walter Lucas, Ceasar Moore, Jr., Juan Sanchez 

Munoz, and Renu Khator.

On March 22, 2022, appellant filed her appellant’s brief. The brief does not comply with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Among other things, 

appellant’s brief:

• Does not “give a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s judgment or order 

appealed from, and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel”;

• Does not contain “a table of contents with references to the pages of the brief” or a 

“table of contents . . . indicat[ing] the subject matter of each issue or point, or group 

of issues or points”;

• Does not contain “an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the 

pages of the brief where the authorities are cited”;

• Does not “state concisely the nature of the case,” “the course of proceedings, and 

the trial court’s disposition of the case,” “supported by record refences”;

• Does not “state concisely all issues or points presented for review”;

• Does not “state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or 

points presented,” “supported by record references”;

• Does not “contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made 

in the body of the brief”; and
2

• Does not “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with 

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i); Petty v. Petty, No. 13-14-00051-CV, 2014 

WL 5500459, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 30, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. 

op.) (where brief presents “no cognizable or discernable issues” and contains “no coherent 

argument supported by appropriate citations” it fails to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.1).

An appellate court is “not obligated to become [an] advocate[] for a particular litigant by 

performing research and developing argument for that litigant. It is the appealing party’s burden 

to discuss h[er] assertions of error, and [the appellate court] ha[s] no duty—or even right—to 

perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was 

error.” See Tucker v. Fort Worth W. R.R. Co., No. 02-19-00221-CV, 2020 WL 3969586, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (internal citations and quotations 

omitted); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 896 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2010, no pet.) (“Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our 

responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the 

other.”). A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney and must comply with 

all applicable laws and rules of procedure. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).

Because appellant’s brief does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, 

we strike appellant’s brief filed on March 22, 2022. We order appellant to file a corrected brief 

that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. The deadline for filing the 

corrected brief is thirty days from the date of this order.

If appellant’s corrected brief does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

the Court may strike the corrected brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, proceed as if 

appellant has failed to file a brief, and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 

42.3, 43.2(f); see, e.g., Tucker, 2020 WL 3969586, at *1 (where appellant ordered to file amended 

brief but amended brief still did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, striking 

amended brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution); Tyurin v. Hirsch & Westheimer, 

P.C., No. 01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 19, 

2017, no pet.) (mem. op.); Petty, 2014 WL 5500459, at *1–2 (striking appellant’s amended brief 

and dismissing appeal because of failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1). 

If appellant fails to timely file her corrected brief, the Court may also dismiss her appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3, 43.2(f).

Appellee’s brief will be due thirty days from the date appellant’s corrected brief is filed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss___________________

Acting individually

Date: ___March 29, 2022___