# CAUSE NO. 04-15-00219



## — 

# CV CAUSE NO. 04-15-00218



## — 

# CV DAVID GOAD, Appellant V. 

## JAMIE 

# OSBORNE, Appellee 

# CONSOLIDATED



# WITH DAVID GOAD, Appellant V. 

## ERIC 

# STREY Appellee 

### Appealed



### from the 

### County

Court, 

### Guadalupe

County,



### Texas Trial 

### Court 

### No. 

### 2014-CV-0393 Trial 

### Cour No. 

## 20l4—CV-0392 Robin V. 

### Dwyer,

Judge Presiding 

# APPELLEES’



# OPPOSITION



# TO APPELLANT’S 

# SECOND REQUEST

FOR 

# MORE TIME ACCEPTED 04-15-00219-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/21/2015 4:39:33 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK

# TO

THE 

# HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS: 

# COMES 

# NOW Appellees



### Jamie 

### Osborne

and Eric Strey 

### and files this their 

### Opposition

to 

### Appellant’s



### Second

Request

for 

## More Time and 

## would

respectfully 

## show unto this 

### Court as follows:

1. 

### Relief



## Reg uested 

## On September

14, 

### 2015, Appellant,



### David 

## Goad

filed his 

### Second

Request for 

## More Time with this 

### Court. 

### Mr.

Goad’s 

### Motion

claims

a 

### medical

condition



### he has lived 

### with for six 

### years 

### has left 

## him physically



### unable

to draft appellate

briefs 

### required



### of 

## him in this 

### Court, 

### Texas 

## Supreme

Court 

### and the Fifth Circuit



### Court 

### of Appeals.



### Mr. 

## Goad concludes

his 

### Request



### by asking

this 

### Court

for 

### an indefinite 

### extension



### of time for 

### Mr. 

## Goad

to 

### file his brief. 

### Mr.



### Goad’s

request 

### comes

just 

### four 

### days prior to 

### the 

### September

18, 

### 2015 deadline

this 

### Court 

### imposed

on 

## him to 

### file his 

### Appellate

brief. 

### Mr. Goad’s

request



### should

in all 

### things 

### be 

# DENIED

and his 

### appeal 

## DISMISSED

for 

## Want of Prosecution. II. 

## Argument



# & Authorities 

### Mr. 

### Goad’s

Request

is 

### not 

### accompanied



## by any competent

evidence. 

## The documents

attached

to 

### Mr. Goad’s

Request

are eitherirrelevant, in 

### the 

### case 

### of Exhibit 

# A or 

### hearsay, exhibits 

### B, C, 

### and 

### D, pursuant to 

### the 

### Texas Rules 

### of Evidence. 

### Mr.



## Goad attached



### an article

that is 

### not verified

as 

### a business

record 

### and
Page 2 of 6

### provides the 

### Court with 

### no relevant



### information

as to 

## why Mr. 

## Goad has failed

to 

### comply

with the order. 

## He also 

### attachedthree letters 

### allegedly

### from his

## own treating



### physicians,



### the latest 

### of 

### which

is

### dated

April 20, 

### 2015, 

### from Dr. 

### Toledo. 

## None of the three letters 

### say



### anything



### about 

### Mr. 

## Goad not 

### being able to 

## work during

the 

### relevant



### time period. 

### In

fact, 

### since 

### Exhibit 

# B was reportedly

drafted 

### by Dr. 

### Horton



### on August

16,

### 2010,



### Mr. 

## Goad has 

### prosecuted

three 

### lawsuits

in the 

### United

States

District



### Court

for 

### the 

### Western

District



### of Texas, 

## two of 

### which he appealed

to 

### the 

### United

States 

### Appellate



### Court

for the 

### Fifih Circuitl. 

### In

addition



### he has 

### appealed to this 

### Court 

### no less 

### than 

### seven (7) 

### times in that 

## same spanz, 

### including

the present



### consolidated

appeal. 

## He has also 

### appealed

to sister courts,



### the 

### Third 

### Court of Appeals3



### and the 

### Fourteenth



### Court 

### of Appeals4

during

that 

### time period. 

## He

has 

### evenappealed

### one of his 

### cases to the

### Texas

## Supreme Cou1t.5

1 1. 

### 5:2011-cv-01056 Goad,

et. al. v. 

### Guadalupe

County,

et. al. [Appealed] 2. 

### 522013-cv-00063



### Goad

v. Doe,

et; al. 3. 

### 5:2014-cv-00813



### Goad

v. 

### Camareno,

et, al.[Appealed] 2 1. 

### 08-10-00216

David 

### Goad

v. 

### ZuehlAirport

Flying 

### Community

0wnersAssociation; 2. 

### 04-11-00293-CV

David 

### Goad

v. Zuehl/lirport

Flying 

### Community

0wnersAssociation; 3. 

### 04-11-00894

In re 

### David Goad, Relator; 4. 

### 04~14-00497-CV

David

C. 

### Goad

v. 

### The County of Guadalupe,

Texas; 

### 5.04-~14-00501In re 

### David Goad; 6. 

### 04-14-00637

In re 

### David Goad; 7. 

### 04-15-00218

/ 

### 04-15-00219

David 

### Goad v.]amie



### Osborne

/ 

### David 

### Goad

v. Eric Strey. 3 

### 03-12-00170-CV In re 

### David 

### Goad 4 

### 14-13-00861-CV

David 

### Goad

v. 

### Hancock

Bankf/k/a

Peoples

First 

### Community



### Bank 5 

### 15-0662

David 

### Goad

v. 

### Hancock

Bankf/k/a

Peoples

First 

### Community



### Bank Page 3 of 6Interestingly, 

### Mr. 

## Goad recently



### requested



### an extension



### of time to file his brief in his 

### Texas 

## Supreme

Court

case. 

## He

cited this

### Court’s



### August

12, 

### order



### and its 

### September

18, 

### 2015 deadline

as 

### a basis for 

### the 

### extension



### he requested



### from the 

### Texas 

## Supreme

Court. 

# A

Copy of 

### Mr. 

### Goad’s

Extension

Request,



### file 

### stamped 

### August

31,

### 2015

in 

### Cause No. 15-0662 is 

### attached



### hereto

as 

### Exhibit 

# A for 

### the 

### Court’s



### convenience. If 

### Mr. 

## Goad were truly 

### unable

to 

### complete



## more than ten 

### pages 

### of briefing

in a 

### month’s

time as 

### he claims,

his 

### Request

for 

### Additional

time, 

### should 

### have 

### been presented

to this 

### Court immediately



### upon the 

### Court’s

issuance



### of its 

### August

12, 

### 2015 Order, 

### not thirty 

### (30) 

### days later. 

### Appellees

are fully 

### aware of the 

### Court’s

great discretion



### over

its 

### docket 

### and 

### power

to 

### schedule

matters



### before

it. 

### Appellees’

intention

is 

### voice

their 

### objection

to 

### Appellant’s



### Request



### and alert 

### the 

### Court

to 

### Mr. 

### Goad’s

long Appellate

history,



### even during

his 

### alleged

illness.



### Mr. 

## Goad has 

### had 

### ample time to 

### prosecute

this 

### appeal 

### and 

### drafi his 

### Appellate

brief. 

### Yet

he has 

### chosen

not to so, rather

his 

### apparent intention

is to dictate

to this 

### Court 

## when he will 

### submit

his brief, 

### while using

this 

### Court’s

orders

to 

### delay other 

### appeals



### he is 

### prosecuting. 

### Mr.



## Goad intends

to file his 

### do

so 

## when

it is 

### convenient for 

### him, regardless 

### of

the 

### Rules 

### of Appellate 

### Procedure

or the 

### Orders 

### of this 

### Court.



### Page 4 of 6If 

### the 

### Court chooses

to 

### allow 

### Mr. 

## Goad an additional



### extension,



### Appellees respectfully



### request

the 

### Court 

### admonish

Mr. 

## Goad

to retain 

### counsel



### and that 

### no additional



### extensions

will 

### be given as 

### a result 

### of 

### Mr. 

### Goad’s

personal

inability

to 

### file his 

### Appellate

Brief. III. 

# PRAYER



# FOR RELIEF 

# WHEREFORE

PREMISES

CONSIDERED,

Appellees

respectfully



### request this 

### Honorable

Fourth 

### Court of 

### Appeals 

# DENY

Appellant’s



### Request



### and 

## DISMISS his 

### appeal

for 

## Want of Prosecution.

Page 5 of 6

### Respectfully 

### Submitted, 

### Chunn,

Price 

# & Harris 

### 16500 

### San Pedro Ave., Suite 

### 410 

### San Antonio, 

# TX 78232 Telephone

(210) 

### 343.5000 Telecopier

(210) 

### 525.0960 /s/ 

### Jeremy

R. 

### Sloan 

### Jeremy

Sloan State 

### Bar No. 

## 24054995 Email:

jsloangazgphattorneys.com 

# CERTIFICATE



# OF SERVICE This

is to certify

that 

### a true 

### and correct 

### copy of the 

### foregoing



### document



## was served

on: 

### David 

## Goad l 

### 154 Rivertree



### Dr. 

# New Braunfels, 

# TX 78130

/s/ 

### Jeremy

R. 

### Sloan 

### Jeremy

Sloan

Page 6 of 6

# EXHIBIT 

# AHLIZU 

### E 

### COURT ‘N sU‘(::E1héxAs Au(531'lli'l5 

# M1 

# 5 _ CISIK ' ' - I 

### BLAKE 

### HAW‘ DeP“‘V ‘ - V 

### By 1) § A 

### IN 

# THE Petitioner, § v. § § 

# SUPREME

COURT HAN(.‘()Cl(



# BANK F/K/A

I’E()l’l,ES § 

### FIRST 

# COMMUNITY

BANK, § 

### Respondent. § 

## OF TEXAS I’ETl'I'IONER'S



## MOTION 

# TO EXTEND TIME 

# TO FILE 

## PETITION



## FOR 

## REVIEW

I. This motion

is brought

under 

### Texas Rules of Appellate



### Procedures

53.7

(f) Extension



### of 

### Time

to tile petition

for review.

Said rule provides

authority

to the 

### Texas 

### Supreme

Court

to grant additional

time for Petitioner

to tile his petition

for review. 2. Petitioner is David 

### Goad.

inI’/'0/aria

/’eI'.s'una

(pro se): respondent

is 

### Hancock

Bank. with counsel.

3. 

### The Fourteenth

Court oi‘/\ppea|s

issued

its 

### Memorandum

Opinion

in 

### Goad

v. Hancock. 

### NO. l4—l3~t)t)8(i1—(‘V.



### on April

6. 2015. 4. Petitioner's

motion

for "rehezu'ing

and en banc consideration"



### was denied 

### on July 14. 2015. 5.Petitioner's

petition

for review

is 

### due in the 

### Supreme

Court 

### on August

28. 20l 5. forty-five days from the July 14. denial. 6. Petitioner

requests

an additional

60 days to file the petition

for review.

extending

the time until October

27. 2015. 

### No prior requests

have been 

### made to extend

time to tile the petition

for review.

7. /\Ll(IIIi()lI£Ii time is needed

for the following

reasons:

21. Petitioner

has been disabled

For 

### more than 7 years. 

### The disability

stems from prior spinal injuries. at stroke

with subsequent

heart surgery.

and posttraumatic

stress disorder.

These

disabilities are \\ ell 

### defined

under

the Ameriez1n‘s

with Disability

Act. Normally.

the petitioner

lags behind ortakes about twice the normal 

### amount

ol‘timc

to prepare

pleadings.

however.

the last 

### few months have been very difticult



### and has further

limited

the petitioner's

workload. b.Petitioner is 

### working

on multiple

briefs and one to the U.S. 

### Supreme

Court. 

### One example
is attached

and incorporated

herein

as Exhibit



### "A." Conclusion
8. 

### Given

petitioner's

health

issues and 

### work backlog.

it is impossible

for 

### him to submit a meaningful

petition

for review

within

the normal

time limitations. Declaration 9. 1. David



### Goad.

if requested

to 

### do so. could and 

### would competently

testify under

oath. based 

### upon 

## my personal

knowledge.

to the matters

stated

herein: 

### The information

provided

in the 

### PE'l‘lTIONER'S



# MOTION 

# TO EXTEND

TIME 

## TO FILE 

## PETITION



## FOR REVIEW

and is true.

I freely

swear under the penalty 

### of perjury

under the 

### Laws ofthe United

States of 

### America

that 

## my above statements

are true and correct

to the best of 

## my knowledge. 

### Request

it). Petitioner

requests

the 

### Supreme

Court grant 60 additional

days to lile his petition

for review.

Respectfully submitted.



### David Goad, 

### pro se

## CERTIFICATE!) 

## OF SERVICE

I certify

under the penalty

of perjury

that

I sent a 

### copy of the 

## PETITIONER'S



## MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

# TO FILE I’E'l‘lTI()N



## FOR 

## REVIEW

to each ofthose

listed 

### below on 

### August 2 . 20l

S. 

### The method

ofdelivery

is noted 

### below each name. 

### When

sent by "U.S. Mail,"

the document(s) were placed

into an envelope

postage

prepaid

and deposited

into a 

### box 

### which

is used solely

for the collection

ofmail

by the 

### US. postal

service. Craig R. 

### Denum

l I757 Katy Freeway..

Ste l()l() Houston.



### Texas 77079-1732 U.S. Mail

David 

### Goad

## jfaurtb Glluurt



### at 

# Qppeals 

# 5am $§Intom'o,

tlliexas 

### August

12, 

### 2015 No. 04-15-00218-CV David 

## GOAD, Appellant V. Eric 

## STREY

and 

### Does

1 through

l0, Appellees No. 04~15-00219-CV David 

## GOAD, Appellant V. Jamie 

## OSBORNE Appellee 

### From the County

Court, Guadalupe

County,

Texas Trial Court No. 

### 2014-CV-0392

and 

### 2014-CV-0393 Honorable

Robin V. Dwyer,

Judge Presiding 

# ORDER
The brief of appellant



### David 

### Goad in these consolidated

appeals 

### was due July 20, 2015. Neither

the brief nor a 

### motion

for extension

of time 

### was filed. 

## On

July 23, 2015, 

### we ordered 

### Goad to file, not later than 

### August

3, 2015,

his appel1ant’s

brief and a written

response reasonably

explaining

his failure

to timely file the brief. 

## On

August

6, the court received

Goad’s motion

for extension



### of time to file his brief 

### and a request

for a 

### copy of the record. 

## We grant the motion. 

## We order the Clerk of this court to send a 

### copy of the appellate record

to appellant



### on 

## CD Rom. Appellant

is advised

that if 

### he desires

a supplemental

clerk’s record, he 

### must request

the supplement

in writing



### from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the request

in this court. 

### Any such request

will not be grounds

for extending

the due date for appellant’s

brief. 

# 2‘/:(¢:'4"

## We order appellant's

brief 

### due 

### September

18, 

### 2015 (60 days after the original



### due date). 

### No further

extensions

will 

### be granted

absent

a 

### motion showing

of extraordinary

circumstances. If the brief or a 

### motion

is not electronically

filed or received

in this court 

### by September

18, 2015, the appeal

will be dismissed

for 

### want of prosecution. 

### The

mailbox

rule will not apply. 

# %/rwnmll. Luz Eleh/a D. Chapa,

Justice I 

### IN 

## WITNESS



## WHEREOF, I have hereunto

set 

## my hand and affixed

the seal of the said court on this 12th day of August,

2015. ‘\‘“||iI|UHI][, \ 

## F ”I/ §‘\"s’é:$.._,O.o--¢~v_A:.,'fD<:'?{(‘,.‘ ~ __. 

### xs

. 

### ‘"57 €45. 

### 59‘ o 

# O

. - 

# $0

V 

### 9)



# % Keith B. Hottle' 

## § * 

## * gg Clerk

of Court '‘ Cl 2'. :.=- -— 1; 

# ‘wk $e§ I """r7 ' r= ‘ ~‘I~‘«‘§

’ "’«‘IInmu\\\‘\\“‘David 

### Goad

August

25. 

### 2015 Mr. Blake A. l-lawthorne.

(flerk 

### Supreme

Court oI'Tcxas 

### PO. Box 12248 Austin. 

### Texas 7871 I Re: Petition

for 

### Review

in 

### Goad

v. 

### Hancock Hello Mr. Hawthorne. Please

lile this 

### new issue 

### upon receipt. 

## A declaration

to proceed

In 

## Fomm

Pc/uperis

is also provided

for your consideration. If any question

arise please

contact

me. 

# 591?

David 

### Goad