COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS
J AMES SC OTT, Appellant,

v. THE COUNTY OF E L PASO, TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-11-00011- CV

Appea l from the 120th District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 2010-1092)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION
J ames Scott appeals from the trial court’s order g ranting El Paso County ’s plea to the jurisdiction. W e af

firm.
BACK GR OUND
J ames Scott, a state prison i n m at e acting pro se , sued El Paso County , alleg ing that two county employ ees – District Attorney J aime Esparza and District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez – wer e “g uilty of violating the expunction order signe d by J udg e Ables of the 216th District Court of Ker r County

. . . [and] fail[ ing] to perf orm their duties, specific ally reque sting the court to remove the expunged con v i ct i o n from [t he] indictment [i n El Paso County ] cause no. 81692-120.” Scott 1 alleg ed further that, beca use of Esparza’s and Sanchez’s failure to act, he “suf fe r[ ed ] sever e

em o t i o n al distress and mental anguish,” for which he soug ht injunctive relief and $600,000 i n damag es.

I t i s d i f

f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e f

r o m S c o t t ’ s p e t i t i o n t h e e x a c t n a t u r e o f h i s c l a i m s
. H o w e v e r , i t a p p e a r s f r o m 1 t h e r e c o r d a n d f

r o m t h e a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s t h a t h i s c l a i m s a r o s e f r o m : h i s 1 9 9 6 c o n v i c t i o n f o r a g g r a v a t e d r o b b e r y i n E l P a s o C o u n t y c a u s e n u m b e r 8 1 6 9 2 ; t h e f a c t t h a t h i s p u n i s h m e n t f o r t h a t o f

f e n s e w a s e n h a n c e d b y t w o p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s , o n e o f w h i c h w a s f r o m K e r r C o u n t y ; a n d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e K e r r C o u n t y c o n v i c t i o n w a s l a t e r s e t a s i d e a n d o r d e r e d e x p u n g e d

.El Paso C o u n t y fi led a plea to the jurisdiction, in which it arg ued that Scott had failed to

show a waiver of g overnme ntal immunit y from suit. See Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Jones , 8 S.W .3d 2 636, 638 (Tex. 1999) (summarizing law of g overnme ntal immunit y ). After a hear ing, the trial court
g rante d the county ’s plea. Scott, in his brief to this Court, contends that the trial court err ed in g ranting the county ’s plea beca u s e, “[ u ] n d er Texas Tort Claim[ s] Act 101.021 (per sonal injury), the court has authority to consider the claims; a g overnme ntal [entit y ] can be sued for persona l injury .” (Pare nthetical materia l in orig inal.) Scott offe rs no furthe r ar g ument or authority in support of his contention.
DISCUSSIO N
An appellate brief is “mea nt to acqua int the court wi t h t h e i s s u es in a case and to prese nt

ar gument that will enable the court to decide the case .

. . .” T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 38.9

. T o t h at en d , a brief “must contain a clea

r and concise arg ument for the contentions made, with appropr iate citations
to authorities and to the rec ord.” T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 38.1(i). Fur ther, a brief must explain how the law that is cited is applicable to the fac ts of the case , so that the appellate court is not left g uessing as to the exact nature of the party ’s arg ument. Hernande z v. Hernande

z , 318 S.W .3d 464, 466 (Tex. App.

– El Paso 2010, no pet.). I f a brief fails to apply the cited law to the fac ts of the case , then the brief is inadequate and pre sents nothing f or re view. Id

. Scott, in his appellate brief, fails to explain how the cited law – the Texas Tort Claims Act,
Texas Civil Practice s and Remedies Code § 101.021 – applies to the fac ts of this case
. See T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E AN N
. § 101.021 (West 2011). There fore , his brief prese nt s nothing for our

T h e c o m m o n l a w d o c t r i n e o f g o v e r n m e n t a l i m m u n i t y p r o t e c t s c o u n t i e s f r o m s u i t

. W i c h i t a F a l l s S t a t e 2 H o s p
. v
. T a y l o r , 1 0 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 4 n
. 3 ( T e x . 2 0 0 3 )

. 2revie w. I n any event, section 101.021 waives g overnme ntal immunit y only in thr ee are as – claims

arising out of the use of motor-driven vehicles and motor-driven equipment, claims arising from the condition or use of rea l pr operty , and claims arising from the condition or use of persona l proper ty

– none of which appea

rs applicable to the fac ts of this case
. See W. Dorsane o, 19 Texas Liti gation Guide § 293.10[1] (2011). We ther efor e over rule Scott’s issue.
CONCLUSION We affir m the trial court’ s order

.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice October 26, 2011
Be fore McClure, C.J ., Rivera, J., and Chew, C.J ., (Senior)

3