# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 22

- 00673

- CV Robert STRICKER , Appellant

v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY , AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPTIAL I INC. TRUST 2006
- HE8 MORTGAGE PASS
- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006
- HE8 , Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 15 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CV01903 Honorable Melissa Vara , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: March 22, 2023
VACA TED AND DISMISSED This is an appeal from a judgment awarding possession in a forcible detainer action. The issue of possession in a forcible detainer action becomes moot if the judgment is not timely superseded, the appellant is no longer in possession, a nd the appellant does not have a potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession. See Briones v. Brazos Bend Villa Apts. , 438 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). If a case is moot, we must dismiss the case f or lack of jurisdiction. See id.04

- 22

- 00673

- CV

- 2

- In this case, we issued a show cause order on December 21, 2022 , noting a writ of possession had issued, and appellant had not filed a bond to supersede the judgment. We directed appellant to file a response explaining why this case should not be dismissed. On January 5, 2023, appellant , acting pro se, moved for a th irty

- day extension of time to file his response to this court’s December 21, 2022 order, explaining he was “ill from contracting covid 19.” We granted the motion and ordered appellant to file a response no later than January 30, 2023. On January 30, 2023, appellant moved for a second extension of time of five days, explaining “his family [is] still recovering [f]rom medical issues after contracting Covid” and he would “work hard to get it done before the deadline.” We granted appellant’s motion and ordered appellant to file his response to this court’s order no later than February 6, 2023. On February 6, 2023, appellant moved for a third extension of time , seeking thirty days , and explaining he and “his family are still recovering [f]rom medical issues after contracting Covid due to being evicted and put out on the street.” We granted the motion in part, ordering appellant to file his response to this court’s order, if any, no later than March 1, 2023. We further explained “[n]o further extension of time will be granted absent a motion that demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay and advises the court of the efforts expended in preparing a response to the court’s order.” Appellant did not file a timely response. Instead, appellant fil ed a fourth motion for an extension of time explaining he had been hospitalized and was “recently discharged

. ” 1 However, appellant did not identify efforts expended in preparing a response to the court’s December 21,
2022 order or otherwise identify why th is appeal is not moot.

1 Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company opposed the fourth motion for an extension of time, explaining appellant “had ample time to respond.”04

- 22

- 00673

- CV

- 3

- Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss th is case as moot. See id.

PER CURIAM