### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 5 -00 851 -CV

Br e nda E lai ne King , A ppe lla nt

v. Travis County (P ct. C onstable 3 District) and S andy Riojas , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN50327 3 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVI NGSTON , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th is i s an a

pp e a l f ro m a su mma ry jud g me nt g ra

nte d in fav or

of a pp e lle e s T ra

vis County and Deputy Constable Sandy Riojas (collectively , “def endants” ). Appe llant Bre nda Elaine Kin g , r e p r e s e n ti n g h e r s e lf p r o s e , f il e d s u it a g a in s t d e f

e n d an ts , a ll e g in g v ar io u s in te n tional and
ne g lig e nt t or

ts r e la tin g to K ing ’s arr e st f or po sse ssi on

of a c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e . We a ff

ir m.
BACK GR OUND Pur su ant to a ju dgmen t i ss uedagain st Ki ng on Nov emb er 24 , 200 4, Depu ty Con sta ble Sand y Rio ja s w a s a ssi g ne d to e xec ute a wr it of po sse ssi on

on Ki ng ’s pr op e rt

y . A c c or din g to R ioj a s, during the execution of the wr it, Ri ojas discovere d what she be lieved to be a controlled substanc e and a “Rug er P94DC g un.” B oth items were c onfiscate d and turne d over to the Austin P olice De p ar t m en t ’s C ri m e Lab fo r f u rt h er t es t i n g.2 Ba sed on the re sults of t h i s t es t i ng , an ar rest wa rra nt was issued for

King for po s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t an c e . W h e n K i n g a

p p e ar e d a t t h e P r e c i n c t 3 o f f i c e s to re qu e st reimburse ment for a filing fee, Rioj as and at l east one other officer arr ested King . King alleg ed that the offic ers use d excessive forc e in ef fec tuating the arr est and injured her wr ist while handcuff ing her. K ing de nied pos session of t he controlled substance. It is undisput ed that on August 29, 2005, the cr iminal case a g ainst King was dismissed.

On September 12, 2005, King filed suit a g ainst defe ndants. The majority of King ’s petition wa s nothing more than a rec itation of her ve rsion of the fa cts surroundingher a rre st. I t was
no t un til the c on c lus ion

of he r p e tit ion

that K ing e xpla ine d th e le g a l ba sis of he r l aws uit :
Iam suing Travis County , beca use Tra vis County

is r esponsible for the illeg al ac tions stated below taken by

both of the Constable Off icer s ag ainst Plainti ff. Iam suing fo r n egl ige nt misl eadinglies under Chapte r 19-E. N eg lige nt Misrepre sentation (Ne g lige nt Actions). Iam suing under the Tort Ac t for batter y , misconduct—damag ed ner ves in Plaintiffs wrist due to hand- cuff

being too tight ca

using ( compre ssed ner

ves to left wr ist) of Plaintiff. Iam suing for Ne g lige nce of misconduct, false misleading lies filed ag ainst Plainti ff, fra ud, wrongdoings, illeg al proc ess, illeg al proc edure s. . . . I am s u i n g for battery and mis c on du c t, i nju

ry dama g e to my

le ft wr ist (h and -c uf

f t oo tig ht) , h os pit a l bi lls , loss of wag es and my

job was take n from me whe n Iwas a rre sted . . . . F ili nga Pe rs on a l L aws uit

a g a ins t Co ns ta

ble Sand y Rio ja s f or de str oyingmy cre dibilit y , and sca

ndalizing my

name in fro n t o f t he Judge a nd Court (defa

mation of cha rac ter). Mi sleading lies, false state ment to cause harm, by having Plaintiff arr ested. (F iling in the amount of 25,000 dollar s). Tampe ring with evidence

. Ia m su ingTr a vis County in t he a mou nt o f 4 .7 mil lio n d oll ars fo r t he a bo ve a c tio ns . Pun iti ve dama g e s.3 I n response to King’ s petition, the de fenda nts filed a motion for summary judgme nt alleg ing the following g rounds: (1) ther e wa s no evidenc e of ne g lige nt misreprese ntation; (2) King ’s claims for intenti onal torts wer e bar red by sovere ign immunity , see Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.057 (West 2005); (3) K ing f ailed to state a viable cause of ac tion under the Te x as Tort Claims Act for neg lige nt misconduct, se e id

. § 101.021 (West 2005) ; ( 4) the de fenda nts were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for King ’s claims of wr o n gfu l eviction and de famation; (5) King ’s wrong ful eviction cla im is barred by collater al estoppel; (6) King’ s defa mation claim fails as a

matter of law; (7) King ’s ac tion ag ainst Riojas indi vidually is b ar re d b eca

use King elec ted to proce ed ag ainst the County , see id

. § 101.106(a) (West 2005) ; a nd (8) Travis County

is entitled to derivative immunit y , se e id . § 101.056 (West 2005).

King subsequently

filed a “ Motion to Dism iss Sum mary J udg ment” in which she repe ated many of her fac tual alleg ations, summarized r eleva nt c ase law perta ining to various immun ity de fe ns e s, and

a pp are ntl y a lle g e d n e w c a

us e s o f a c tio n f

or fa lse imp ri so nme nt a

nd fa lse

arr est. King also clar ified that she “ has in no way asked f or re cover

y for wr ong ful eviction.” The district cour

t found King ’s motio n t o d i s m i ss the summary judgme nt to be

“ moo t” and , w ith ou t sp e c if y ingits g ro un ds , g ra

nte d the de fe nd ants ’ mot ion fo r s umm ary jud g me nt. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N

Def endants c ontend that King does not pr operly identify issues for a

ppellate r eview. We ag ree . This is an appea l from a summary judgme nt. When the motion for summar y judgme nt is based on seve ral diff

ere nt gr ounds—as it wa s h ere—and the or der g ranting the motion is si lent4

as to the re ason for

g ranting the m o t ion, the appellant must show that ea ch indepe ndent g round alleg ed is insufficient to support summary judgme nt. Se e FM

Pr op s. Op e ra tin g Co . v . Ci ty of A us tin , 22 S.W .3d 868, 872-73 (Te x . 2000). King has fa iled to do so.

The only place in her brie f whe re K ing e ven attempts t o ad d re s s the summary judgme nt gr ounds is in her “Statement of the Case,” w hich we r eprint in its entirety below:
To ana ly ze and make a

logic al deter

mination of whether

office rs ac ted in the scope of the ir aut hori ty

and to e sta bli shhis g oo d f

a ithfo r o ff

ic ia l im mun ity , e sta

bli sh whether an ar rest wa rra nt issued was justifiable by deter mining if off

icer had pr ob a ble c a us e wi th ( fi ve ) i nd ivi du a ls i nc lu di ng Of fi c e r R ioj a s w ho m to ok

so le po sse ssi on

of Pla int if f’ s p e rs on a l pr op e rt

y wi tho ut t he pr e se nc e of

Plain ti ff and to establish if Plaintiff’s injury was justifiable. To deter mine the states liability of the g ener al neg lige nce of

its employ ees, torts, e tc. To dete rmin e p er j u ry char g es for submitt ing in the sw orn st atement a ffidavit (positive pocs [sic]) and results from the Austin Pol ice De partment F orensic, T echnic al Service s Bur eau S ci en ce D ivision Che mis tr y Se c tio n L a

bo rator y Re po rt (N e g a tiv e ) no dr

ug s de te c te d. No fi ng e rp ri nts reque sted to determine to whom position the bag g ie belong ed.
Ev en were we to assume that this statement adequately addre sses some of the de fe nd ants ’ s umm ary jud g me nt g ro un ds , su c h a s so ve re ig n and of fi c ia l immun ity , it

wh oll y fa ils to addre ss other summary judgme nt g rounds upon which the district c ourt could have relied, suc h as wh e the r Tr a vis County is e nti tle d to d e ri vativ e immun ity , w he the r D e pu ty Rio ja s is e nti tle d to qu a sijudicial immunit y , whether King ’s claim for defa mation f ails as a matter of law, whether King failed to state a viable cause of action for neg lige nt misconduct under the tort claims act, and whether there is evidence of neg lige nt misreprese ntation.

Othe r t ha n th e a bo ve “ Statem ent of th e Ca se ,” Ki ng ’s a pp e llate br ie f p ro vid e s th is Court with nothing more tha n a nar rative that she cha

rac terizes as a “ Statement of F acts,” with noKing does provide an “Index of Authorities” in he r brief. Howeve r, King makes no eff ort 1 to refe renc e these authorities within her a rg ument or discuss their re levanc e to her case . 5 citations to the rec ord, and a second na

rrative that she cha

rac terizes as a “ Sum m ar y o f t he A r g u m e n t , ” w i t h n o c i t a t i o n s t o a u t h o r i t y. F ur the rm or e , K ing ’s “ Sum mary of the Ar g ume nt” 1 provides this Court with only conclusory

asser tions related to her

cause s of ac tion, such as the following : “Def

endant is neg lige nt. Defe ndant committed perjury . The c ase w as dis m i s s ed. Plaintiff was injured dur ing a n arr est, and Plaintiff wa s battere d.” Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 3 8 presc ribes the r equire ments for brie fs. The rule provide s that a brief to this C ourt s h al l co n t ai n, among other thing s, a conc ise, nonargumentative stateme nt of the fa cts of the c ase, suppor ted by rec ord re fer ence s, and a c lear and concise argument for the c ontentions ma de with a ppropriate citations to authorities and the r ecor d. McI ntyre v . W

ilson , 5 0 S. W.3 d 6 74 , 6 82 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 1, pe t. d e nie d) . Kin g ’s br ie f f a ils to comply with rule 38.1(e ), (f

), (g ), and ( h). Although w e ar e to construe the rules of appellate proce dure liber ally , se e Re pu bli c Un derw riters Ins. Co. v. Mex -Tex, I nc. , 1 5 0 S. W. 3 d

4 2 3 , 4 2 7 ( T e x. 2 0 0 4 ) , in th is c a s e , K in g ’s briefingis so inadequate that we would have to make her arguments for he r. This we w ill not do. See Robertson v. Southw estern Be ll Y ellow Pages, Inc. , 190 S.W .3d 899, 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; see also In r e Moon , 216 S.W .3d 506, 511 n.3 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007,
no pe t. h .) (“ I t is no t the pr op e r job of thi s Cour t to c re a te argume nts fo r an a pp e lla nt.
. . . We w ill not do the job of the advoc ate.” )6 We r e a lize tha

t King ha s p ro c e e de d w ith ou t th e a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l th ro ug ho ut t

his l i t i g a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g o n a p p e a l

. H o w e v e r , i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t u n f a i r a d v an t a g e o v e r l iti g a nts repr esente d by counsel, pro se l itigants are held to the s ame standards as licensed attorne y s and ar e require d to comply

with applicable laws and proce dural rule s. W heele r v. Gree n , 157 S.W .3d 439, 44 4 ( Te x. 20 05 ); Mansfield State Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184-85 (Te x . 1978).

O n a p p e a l, a s a t tr ia l, th e p r o s e a p p e ll an t mu s t p r o p e r ly p r e s e n t h e r c a s e. S t range v. Continental Cas. Co. , 126 S.W .3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pe t. denied). An issue on

a pp e a l un su

pp or te d b y argume nt o r c itatio n to any le g a l a uth or ity pr e se nts no thi ng fo r the c ourt to revie w. Id

. Ba

re assertions of er

ror, without citations to authority , waive e rror . Lib e rty Mu t. I ns . Co. v. Gri esi ng , 1 5 0 S
. W
. 3 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 8 (T ex . Ap p . —

Au s t i n2 0 0 4 , p et
. fi l ed ) ( ci t i n g Tre nh olm

v . R atc lif f , 64 6 S.W. 2d

92 7, 93 4 ( Te x. 19 83 )) ; se e als o Fre do nia Sta te Ba nk v . G e ne ra l A m. LifeIn s. Co. , 881 S .W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (appellate c ourt has discre tion to conclude that issues ar e waived du e to in a d e qu a te b r ie f in g an d is n o t r e qu ir e d

to a ll o w a

p p e ll an t o p p o rtu

n it y to a me nd inadequate brief

). Ac cording ly , we hold that Kinghas wa ived er ror.
CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pemberton Affir med Filed: June 6, 2007