AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed September 22, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00307-CV THIEN AN VO, Appellant V. HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSION ERS COURT AND HCTRA COLLECTION AGENCY, Appellees On Appeal from the 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-72816

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Thien An Vo, pro se, appeals the tria l court’s order granting Harris County Commissioners Court (“HCC”) and HCTR A Collection Agency’s (“HCTRA”) pleas to the jurisdiction. 1 Concluding Vo’s arguments ar e without merit, we affirm the trial court’s orders.

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred the appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas to this Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases). Because this is a tran sfer case, we apply the precedent of the First Court of Appeals to the extent it differs from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.–2– I. Background This is Vo’s fifth lawsuit arising out the assessment of unpaid toll violation fees she incurred from September 2015 to June 2016. In this suit, Vo sued HCC alleging that the Harris County Toll Road Authority’s (“HCTA”) administrative procedure violated her constitutional rights, and HCC breached a governmental fiduciary duty to select, c ontrol, and supervise the HC TA. Vo requested damages resulting from toll fees she is required to pay and declaratory relief. Vo also identified HCTRA, HCTA, and HC TRA’s counsel as defendants. 2 HCC and HCTRA answered and filed a pl ea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the pleas to the jurisdiction and dismissed all parties and Vo’s suit. This appeal followed. II. Analysis A civil litigant has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal. See Bolling v. Farmers Branc h Indep. Sch. Dist ., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2010, no pet.). The right of self-repr esentation on appeal carries with it the duty to adhere to the rule s of appellate procedure. See id . Pro se appellants are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys. See Hopes-Fontenot v. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. , No. 01-12-00286-CV, 2013 WL 4399218, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 15, 2013, no pet. ) (mem. op.) (pro se litigant must properly

2 HCTA and HCTRA’s counsel were never ser ved and are not parties to this suit.–3– present his case on appeal; we “may not make allowances or apply different standards for litigants appeari ng without . . . counsel.”). Our rules of appellate pro cedure have specific requi rements for the contents of all briefs accepted by the courts. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. Among other requirements, the rules require appellants to state concisely their complaints; provide understandable, succinct, a nd clear argument showing w hy their complaints are meritorious in fact and in la w; cite and apply applicable law; and provide appropriate references to the record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1(f-i); Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 895. “This is not done by merely uttering brie f conclusory statements, unsupported by legal citations.” Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc ., 106 S.W.3d 118, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). When determining whether a particular brief is deficient, we do not adhere to rigid rules, but rather examine the brief for compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. See Bolling , 315 S.W.3d at 895. Only after receiving adequa te briefing may we review the merits of the appeal. Id. ; see also Abdelnour v. Mid Nat'l Holdings, Inc ., 190 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (holding appellant waived issue because appellant's brief did not contain any citations to relevant authorities or to appellate record for that issue). We ha ve no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record to determine whether there was error. Reid v. Worede , No. 01-18-01010-CV, 2020 WL 3393074, at *1 (Tex . App.—Houston [1st–4– Dist.] June 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( noting appellate court’ s role as neutral adjudicator prevents it from performing independent review of record). Applying these standards to Vo’s appellate brief, we conclude that Vo fails to articulate a clear legal issue to be deci ded or, to the extent we can discern a cognizable issue, to make understandable arguments in support of her position. Many of the arguments presented by Vo do not pertain to issues in this lawsuit, address the orders from whic h she appeals, or identify the correct parties to this appeal. Moreover, Vo fails to cite contro lling legal principles or authority or reference the relevant portions of the record. Accordingly, we will decide the issues before us to the extent we can discern them; any issues not specifically addressed are considered waived. See Caldwell v. Garfutt , No. 03-14-00019-CV, 2016 WL 105920 at *2, (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 7, 2016, pet. deni ed) (mem. op.) (addressing “issues [raised by pro se appe llant] as best as we can”); see also Trenholm v. Ratcliff , 646 S.W.2d 927, 934 (Tex. 1983) (“Points of error must be supported by argument and authorities, and if not so su pported, the points are waived.”). In this context, we construe Vo’s argum ents as a challenge to the trial court’s order granting the pleas to the jurisdiction. As discussed below, nothing in the record establishes that the order was in error.
A. HCC HCC argues that Vo did not plead facts or otherwise establish a waiver of HCC’s immunity from suit. We agree.–5– The common law doctrine of governme ntal immunity protects political subdivisions of the state from suit when they perform governmental functions. See Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004). Governmental units may be sued only when the legislature has waiv ed the unit’s immunity in clear language.
See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 311.034; Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep’t v. Sawyer Tr ., 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011). If a government defendant is immune fro m suit, the trial court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case ag ainst it, and the defendant may properly challenge the suit in a plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217, 225–26. We review ju risdictional questions like these de novo. See State v. Holland , 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007). A plaintiff bears the burden of establis hing a waiver of immunity under the
TTCA. See Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Whitley , 104 S.W.3d 540, 542 (Tex. 2003). A governmental unit challenging whether a cl aimant has met this burden may, by a plea to the jurisdiction, contest the pleadings , the existence of jurisdictional facts, or both. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark , 544 S.W.3d 755, 770 (Tex. 2018). If a plea challenges the pleadings, we determin e if the pleader has alleged facts that “affirmatively demonstrate the court' s jurisdiction to hear the cause.” Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 226. We construe the pleadings liber ally in favor of the plaintiff, look to the pleader’s intent, and accept as tr ue the unchallenged f actual jurisdictional allegations in the pleadings. Buzbee v. Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC , 616 S.W.3d–6– 14, 23 (Tex. App.—Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) ( citing Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 226). Here, neither Vo’s pleadings or her ar guments on appeal allege or identify facts to waiver of HCC’s immunity. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. §101.021(2). Moreover, althou gh the Uniform Declarator y Judgment Act includes a waiver of governmental immunity from su it, that waiver is limited to claims challenging the validity of ordinances and statutes. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 37.006 (b); City of Dallas v. Turley , 316 S.W.3d 762, 768 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Ther e is no such challenge here. Finally, to the extent that Vo’s arguments can be interpreted to assert the trial court should have exercised constitutional s upervisory jurisdiction, those arguments also fail. See In re El Paso Cnty. Comm’rs Court , 281 S.W.3d 16, 24 (Tex. App.— El Paso 2005, orig. proceeding) (noting party may invoke a district court’s constitutional supervisory control ov er commissioners’ court in limited circumstances); see also Hobbs v. Gattis, No. 01-19-00025-CV, 2020 WL 6065439, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], no pet.) (mem. op.) (commissioners court subject to certain review powers of district court). In the present case, Vo fails to identify a legitimate constitutional injury or facts to establish that the commissioners court acted beyond its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. See Comm’rs Court of Titus Cnty. v. Agan , 940 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Tex. 1997). Accordingly, on this record, the trial court did not err in granting HCC’s plea to the jurisdiction.–7– B. HCTRA HCTRA’s plea to the jurisdiction asserted that the case against it should be dismissed because it is not a legal entity cap able of being sued. “Civil suits may be maintained only by or against parties ha ving an actual or legal existence.” Bailey v.
Vanscot Concrete Co ., 894 S.W.2d 757, 759 (Tex. 1995), disapproved on other grounds , Chilkewitz v. Hyson , 22 S.W.3d 825 (Tex. 1999); Ray Malooly Trust v. Juhl, 186 S.W.3d 568, 571 (Tex. 2006). A juri sdictional challe nge concerning a party’s capacity to be sued may be asse rted in a plea to the jurisdiction. See Delgado v. River Oaks Police Department , No. 02-15-00205-CV, 2016 WL6900900, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, Nov. 13, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, HCTRA’s verified denial and the supporting documents attached to its plea to the jurisdiction reflect that HCTR A Collection Agency is not a legal entity or an assumed name, and no person or entity has registered with the Texas Secretary of State as HCTRA Collection Agency’s agent for service of process. Because it is not a legal entity, HCTRA Collection Agency lacks the legal capacity to be sued, and the trial court properly granted HCTRA’ s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Vo’s claims against it.–8– III. Conclusion Having resolved all of Vo’s issues agai nst her, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

210307F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–9– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT THIEN AN VO, Appellant
No. 05-21-00307-CV V.
HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT AND HCTRA COLLECTION AGENCY, Appellees On Appeal from the 133rd District Court, Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020-72816. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Myers and Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT AND HCTRA COLLECTION AGENCY recover their costs of this appeal from appellant THIEN AN VO.
Judgment entered September 22, 2022.