C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS J OHN F OX, Ap pe lla nt,

v. CI TY OF ELPASO, THOMAS M A G U IRE , W ILLIAM S T E R N , M A R IO D’AG OSTI

NO, SAM J ARVI S, AND J OHN DO E(S), Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § No. 08-08-00092- CV

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. 6 of El Paso County , Texas (TC#2003-4386)

O P I N I O N J o hnFo x , ap p eari n g pro s e , appea ls from an orde r dismissing hi s suit ag ainst the C ity of El Paso, Thomas Maguire, Willi am S tern, Mario D’Ag ostino, Sam J arvis, and J ohn Doe( s). Finding

no e rr or , w e a ff

ir m. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY Appellant (F ox ) filed his orig i n al petit ion on October 2, 2003 alleg ing that the City of El Pa so , a nd the name d e mpl oye e s o f t he City of El Pa so c omm itt e d va

ri ou s tor ts or int e nti on a l to rt s. These tor ts included trespa ss, i ll e g a l s e a r c h , a nd neg lige nce in c onnection with Appellee s’ utiliz ation of va ri ou s munic ipal c od e s. Ap pe lle e s f ile d th e ir fi rs t ame nd e d a

ns we r a c c omp anie d b y

a ple a to th e j uri s d i ct i o no f th e c o u rt
. P e rt i n en tt o th e m at t er s ra i s edo nap p ea l , i ti nv o k eds o v er ei gn immunit y , and anothe r conte ntion that Fox had failed to comply with the Texas L ocal Gove rnment Cod e re g ard ing jud ic ia l re vie w c on de mnatio n a c tio ns the reby c a us ing the c ourt to lack subj e c tmatte r j ur isd ic tio n r e g ard ingF ox’s c la ims

. A hea ringwas he ld on Ap p el l ee s ’ p l ea to the jurisdiction. The court issued a judgme nt grantingthe plea to the jur isdiction.DI SCU SSIO N

F ox a sse rt s th e fo llo wi ngiss ue s: 1. I s dismis sal with no expl anator y opinion valid? 2. How ca

n a ca use of a ction be conside red dismissed when i t wa s by style of the order (by inacc urac ies and c onsolidated status) undismissed? 3. Ar e the re no w, by

le g a lly re le va nt a pp e ara nc e s; n o ju

ri sd ict io nal lim itatio ns , to c a us e of a c tio ns ? 4. Ar e pu bli c of fi c ia ls s ub je c t to du e pr oc e ss r e qu ir e me nts ? 5. D o th e Co urts h av e anunb ia s e d o b li g ati o nto p r e v e nt a b u s iv e o p posing repr e se ntatio n b y

pr oh ibi tin gtax pa id repr e se ntatio n to Te xas p ub lic of fi c ia ls c ivi lly acc used by officia l abuse victims in pro se and not applying standards of pr ofessional int e g ri ty to op po sin g c ouns e l, e ff or ts t o ta ke dis a str ou sly

un fa ir a dv anta g e of

pr o s e inexperience d ignor ance ? 6. Does the c ourt’s unbiased oblig ation to enforc e ef fec tive assistance of counse l includ e al l o wi nglitigants in pro se (for lack of leg al assistance availability ) no provision for unlicense d leg al help in attemptingto acc ess justice nor a llow any pr oc e dura l pr e fe re nc e fo r t he ine ff e c tiv e ne ss o f t

he he lpl e ss p ro se lit ig ant? 7. Ca n i nterve ntion acce ss to just ice be discretionarily denied without ca

use of h eari n g? 8. As the profe ssional opposition seems to a ssert, and exhibited by dismiss als; are c ourt jus tic ia bil ity re qu ir e me nts and

jud ic ia l r e vie w n o lo ng er a pp lic a ble to l ike ly case s of offic ial abuse? I niti a ll y , w e mu s t a d dr e s s Ap p e ll e e s ’ c o nte nti o nth at F o x h a s w a iv e d h is is s u e s o na

p p eal beca use F ox has fa iled to provide thi s Court with an adequate disc ussion of the fac ts and authorities to maintain an ar gument. We agree . The Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure r equire that appellate briefs “ contain a c lear and concise argument for the c onten tions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the

rec ord.” T EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .1 (i ); W il-Roye I nv. Co . II v . W

ashington Mut. Bank, F.A. , 142 S.W .3d 393, 411 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2004, no pet.).I n t h i s i s s u e Fox c i t es s ome au t h or i t y f or h i s c on t en t i on t h e appe l l at e cou r t s mu s t e x cu s e t h e l ac k of 1 e x p e rtise a n d e x p e rie n c e o f pro s e l i t i gan t s , an d m us t deal wi t h t hem more f avor abl y t han t hey woul d wi t h l i cen s ed at t orn ey s i n or der t o avoi d t he expl oi t at i on by s uch at t orn ey s . H owever , i n or der t o prev ent un f ai r adva nt age over lit iga n ts re p re se n te d b y c o u n se l, pro s e l i t i gant s i n T exas are hel d t o t he same st and ards as l i censed at t o rney s and are re q u ire d to c o m p ly with a p p lica b le law s a n d p ro c e d u ra l ru le s. W h e e le r v . G re e n , 1 5 7 S.W

. 3 d 43 9 , 44 4 (T ex. 20 0 5 ); F o x v . W

a rd y , 2 3 4 S.W

. 3 d 30 , 33 (T ex. A p p . – E l P aso 2 0 0 7 , rev. dis m ’ d w. o . j. ). In this inst ance , as F ox is a ppealing from the granting of Appellee s’ plea to the jurisdiction, F ox mus t a lle g e fa c ts that a ff ir mativ e ly e sta bli shsu bje c t- matt er ju ri sd ic tio n, and if the c a se is dis m i s s ed on that basis, he must, on appeal, attac k all independe nt gr ounds that fully support the adver se trial ruling

. Fox v . Maguire, 224 S.W .3d 304, 307 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2005, pet. denied)

. I f a n a pp e lla nt f a ils to d o s o, the re vie wi ngc ourt mus t a ff ir m. Wit h the possible exception of I ssue No. Six , Fox cites no l eg al authority , and he doe s not 1 pr ov ide any pe rt ine nt le g a l ana ly sis atta c kin g the c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th at it did no t ha ve su bje c tmatter jurisdiction over the cause . Fox filed a re ply

brief in which he raised four new issues apar t from thos e urg ed in this init ial brief. T he Rules of Appe llate Proce dure do not allow an appellant to raise an i ssue i n a reply brief which was not included in his orig inal brief. T EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .3

. Con se qu e ntl y , F ox ha s f a ile d to prese rve the se asse rtions for re view. See F ew v. Fe w , 2 71 S.W. 3d

34 1, 34 7 ( Tex .Ap p. --El Pas o 20 08 , p e t. d e nie d) ; Gray v . W oodville Health Care Center , 2 25 S.W. 3d 61 3, 62 0 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 2006, pet. denied) . Acc ording ly , all of Appe llant’s issues are overr uled. CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. GUADA LUPE RIVERA, J ustice J uly 22, 2009 Be fo re M cC l ure , J

. , R i v er a, J

. , an d M ac i as , J u d ge