IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

10

- 14

- 00355

- CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Appellant

v.
SAM ROUND, Appellee

10

- 14

- 00392

- CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Appellant

v.
SEAN D. FLEMING, Appellee

10

- 1 5

- 00069

- CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Appellant

v.
KELLIE McDOUGALD, AppelleeWindsor v. Round, Fleming, McDougald, and Joeyisalittlekid Page 2 No. 10

- 15

- 00092

- CV

WILLIAM WINDSOR , Appellant

v.
JOEYISALITTLEKID, ET AL , Appellee

From the 378th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 88611

O R D E R

There are currently four civil proceedings pending before this Court in which
William Windsor is the ap pellant. In each proceeding, Windsor has filed a brief which
on its face is grossly deficient from compliance with the rules of appellate procedure.
The most glaring deficiency is that Windsor does not include “appropriate citations to

authorities and to the record.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1 (i). He makes general references to
the record without specific page numbers, or even volume numbers, thus requiring this
Court to sift through a voluminous clerk’s record for the document Windsor references.
We are not required to sift through the record for support of Wind s or’s arguments. See

Hajjar v. State , 176 S.W.3d 554, 566 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).Windsor v. Round, Fleming, McDougald, and Joeyisalittlekid Page 3

Additionally, some issues are not supported by citations to authorities at all. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.1(i).

Windsor also includes an appendix with his brief containing a multitude of
documents, many of which, if not all, are included in the clerk’s record and cites to this
appendix as authority rather than to the clerk’s record. Windsor had previously been
informed by order of the Court issued on September 3, 2015 that he could not use his
own documents in lieu of a clerk’s record. The appendix included with Windsor’s brief
evidences a conscious decision to ignore that order. This appendix was voluminous,

unnecessary , and consumed an undue amount of time for this Court to process and file.
Furthermore, there are a number of potentially dispositive issues pending
decision by the Court, including pending motions to dismiss by some of the appellees.
In light of these facts, the Court stays the briefing schedule for the appellees in
each proceeding to potentially avoid the cost and burden of complying with the due
dates for filing an appellee’s brief. The appellees may file their brief in response if they

choose to, bu t the due date for those briefs is hereby suspended until further order of

the Court. This does not, however, prevent any party from filing any interim response
to the briefs or motions regarding other relief sought, if any.
Finally, the Court is consider ing whether the briefs filed by Windsor should be
stricken, as his previously improper briefs were, or whether it would be appropriate at
this juncture, based on the history of this litigation, to dismiss the proceeding s as aWindsor v. Round, Fleming, McDougald, and Joeyisalittlekid Page 4

sanction. Windsor is invited to respond to the Court’s notice of its consideration of
further sanctions against him. Upon Windsor’s response, if any, other parties may
reply to Windsor’s response if they so choose.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Just ice Scoggins Briefing schedule stayed Order issued and filed October 15, 2015