DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 10, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00668-CV DEDERIAN DEMOND HERRON, Appellant V. ABIGAIL SALVADOR MUNO Z, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-05553 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, J ustice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Pro se appellant Dederian Herron appeals the trial court’s summ ary judgment in this personal injury suit. On June 21, 2018, appellant filed a brie f. By letter dated June 27, 2018, we informed appellant his brief failed to comply with the requirem ents of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief was deficient in that (1) it did not contain a statement of the case, course of proceedings, or the trial court’s disposition of the case; (2) it did not concisely state all issues presented for review; (3) it did not contain a statement of facts with references to the record; (4) it did not contain a s uccinct, clear, and accurate summary of the arguments made in the body of the brief; (5) the argumen t did not contain appropriate citations to the record; and (6) it did not contain a short con clusion clearly stating the nature of the relief sought. See id. 38.1(d), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j). We provided appellant an opportunity to file–2– an amended brief that complied with the requirements of appella te rule 38.1 no later than July 9, 2018 and cautioned him that failure to comply may result in dis missal of the appeal without further notice. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3 (b), (c). O n July 2, 2018 and October 2, 201 8, appellant filed two different amended briefs, the former which contains his argumen ts and the latter containing only a list of parties and entities served with the document and a p hotograph of a damaged vehicle, captioned “Exhibit Z.” Because the October 2, 2018 amended bri ef appears to be an attempt to attach “Exhibit Z” to appellant’s July 2, 2018 brief, we will a ddress the substance of only the July 2, 2018 (“amended brief”). For the reasons stated below, we co nclude appellant’s amended brief is also deficient and dismiss the appeal. Although individuals have the righ t to represent themselves pro se in civil litigation, they are held to 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 “identif ying possible trial court error” or for reviewing the record to find favorable facts that may support a party’s position. Id. Importantly, under rule 38.1(f), the court “must be able to discern what que stion[s] of law [it] will be answering.” Id. at 896. A brief fails if it doe s 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 clea r and understandabl e statements of the contentions being made.” Id. Under rule 38.1(i), appellant’s argument must make direct references to facts in the reco rd and applicable legal authorit y. Id. A brief fails under rule 38.1(i) if the court must speculate or guess if references to facts or legal authority “are not made or are inaccurate, misstated, or misleading.” Id. Appellant’s brief contains allegations of negligence per se and urges this Court to grant his motion for summary judgment and approve his requested settlemen t award of $120,000,000.00.–3– The brief does not contain any citations to the record to suppo rt these allegations, nor does it contain a statement of facts. Instead, it contains argument wi thout citations to the record and summaries of inapplicable case law. The brief is clearly defic ient, leaving us to speculate or guess as to the contentions being made and whether they are meritorio us. Because appellant has not provided the Court with existing legal authority that can be ap plied to the facts of the case, his brief fails. See Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 896. Appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements o f our appellate rules after being given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we dismiss t he appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

180668F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DEDERIAN DEMOND HERRON, Appellant
No. 05-18-00668-CV V. ABIGAIL SALVADOR MUNOZ, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-05553. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered October 10, 2018.