Fontenot r epre sents herse lf pro se. We viewpro se plea dings w ith “liberality and patienc e” 1 t o seek the substance of

the complaint. Aguilar v. Stone , 6 8 S. W. 3 d 1 , 1

- 2 ( T e x. A p p . — H ouston [ 1 s tDi s t
. ] 1 9 9 7 , o ri g. p ro ce ed i n g) ( ci t i n g Haines v. Kerne r , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) . Howeve r, pro se status does not excuse a litiga nt from complying w ith applicable r ules of proc edure
. Fa re tta v . Ca lif or nia , 42 2 U. S. 80 6, 83 4 n .4 6 ( 19 75 ); Mansfield State Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184- 85 (Tex. 1978). 

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

NO. 03-0 5 -00 378 -CV

Edit h F ont e not , A ppe lla nt

v . Britt Brookshire , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN10040 5 , HO NORAB LE JO HN K . DIETZ , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Edith Fontenot appea ls from the trial cour t’s dismiss al of he r ca se for want of 1 prosec ution. Bec ause the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismiss ing this case , we a ffirm the jud g me nt o f d ism iss a l.
P roce dural Hi story

I n Fe bruar

y 2001, Fontenot f

iled her o ri ginal petition suing the Te x as Workforc e C o m m i s s i o n( T W C ) an d B r i t tB r o o k s h i r e f

o r r a c e an d g e n d e r

d i s c r i m i n at i o nu n d e r

T i t l e V II, violations of the Equal Pay Act, and state l aw claims of harassment, neglig ence , and fraud. I n Marc hFontenot appea led the dismiss al. Howe ver, he r appe al was dismissed by the Fif th Circuit Court 2 of Appe als on Dec ember

6, 2001, for wa

nt of prosec ution. At this point , an appe alable judg ment ag ainst the TWC ex isted, either a s an interlocutor y appea l 3 (g ra nt o r d e nia l of a ple a to the jur isd ic tio n, Te x. Civ . Pra c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. § 5 1. 01 4( a )( 8) (We st Supp. 2006)), or a s a final judg ment in the sever ed cause (dismissal of all claims ag ainst the TWC). U n d e r t h e T r a v i s C o u n t y L o c a l R u l e s , t h e m o t i o nt o r e t a i nw a s d u e a tl e a s tt h r e e w o r

k i n g d a ys 4 pr ior to t he date sp e c if

ie d in the no tic e of dis mis sa l fo r w ant o f p ro se c uti on . T ra vis Cou nty Di st. Cts
. L oc. R. 8.5(a) . The motion must cont ai n a memora ndum of fac tual and leg al re asons for w hy the case should not be dismis sed. Id . R. 8. 5( b) . F on te no t’ s mo tio n me t ne ith e r r e qu ir e me nt. 2 2001, the TW C and Br ookshire answ ere d, raised a ffirmative defe nses, and f iled a notice of

remova l to the United States District Court for the Wester n District of Texas. That cour t dismi ssed F o n t e n o t ’ s f

e d e r a l T i t l e V II a

n d E qu a l P ay

A c t c l a i m s an d r e m a n d e d h e r s t a t e l aw c l a i m s . In 2 Au g us t 20 01 , F on te no t f

ile d a fi rs t ame nd e d p e tit ion

in T ra vis County Di str ic t Co ur

t a dd ingc la ims that the TWC and Brookshire had violated he r right to due proc ess under the United States and Te x as Constit utions. The TWC t hen filed a plea to the jurisdiction that was g rante d Fe bruar y 21, 2002. The TWC was seve red f

rom this law suit, and the suit ag ainst it was assig ned a ne w ca use number. 3 No furthe r ac tivity occur

red in the case unt il Marc h 2005, when the tr ial court sent notice to the par

ties indicating that Fontenot’ s case would be dismis s ed fo r wa nt of prosec ution on April 15, 2005, unless a motion to retain wa s filed before that date. A copy of F ontenot’s motion to retain wa s rec eived, but not filed, by the Travis County Court Administrator’s Off ice on Apr il 13, 2005. On April 22, 2005, B rookshire f iled her r esponse in opposition to the moti on to reinstate. 4 On May 9, 2005, the trial court signe d an order dismiss ing Fontenot’ s case for want of p rosecution. Although F ontenot’s motion to reinstate was untimely filed on June 15, 2005, and was not ver ified, she never theless t imely

perf ecte d her a

ppeal by filing a notice of a

ppeal on June 8,A m oti on to re ins ta te mus t be ve ri fi e d. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 65 a (3 ). An un ve ri fi e d mo tio n to 5 reinstate doe s not ex tend the appe llate timetable. S e e M c Co n n e ll v . May , 8 0 0 S.W .2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990). Fontenot lists eig ht issues in he r brief with he r challeng e to the dismiss al being the first issue. 6 Howeve r, the other se ven issues we re not mentioned a g ain and so a re w aived be cause not briefe d at all. Se e ge ne ra lly Tex. R. App. P
. 38. Fur ther, some of t he is sues ar e re levant to orde rs for w hich the tim e fo r a

pp e a l ha s la

ps e d. We o ve rr

ule iss ues two thro ug h e ig ht i n w hic h F on te no t a sse rt s: defe ndants abused the ir discre tion when t hey remove d the lawsuit to fede ral c ourt when the fede ral statut e of lim itatio n h a d e xpir e d; the c ourt e rr e d in no t de c lari nga de fa ult jud g me nt f

or de fe nd a nts ’ failure to a

nswer plaintiff’s amende d petition; the court err ed in f ailing to r ever se the order to sever the Texas Workforce Commi ssion from the lawsuit and whe n it did not reverse t he orde r for dismiss al for w ant of jurisdiction when de fend an t s did not provide ade quate notice (at lea st three day s) of the he aringon the plea to the jurisdiction or the sever ance of one of the def endants; the c ourt e rred whe n it did

no t c on sid e r t

hat th e de fe nd ants may

have a bu se d th e U. S. Po sta l se rv ic e to fa c ili tat e th e fa ilure to g ive a de qu a te no tic e fo r t he he ari ng ; th e c ourt

e rr e d w he n it

re fu se d to rec og nize, corre ct and sa

nction defe ndants’ abuse of litigation strateg ies; th e r e mo v al to fede ral c ourt wa s e rr on e ou s b e c a

us e the EE OC pr oc e dure s a llo we d th e su it to be f ile d in F e de ra l or

State c ourt ; and the c ourt err ed whe n it failed to inform plaintiff of the order that was e ntere d during the hea ring on the def endant’ s plea for

jurisdiction and motion to s ever .

3 2005. On appe al, Fo n t en o t co n tends that the trial cour t erre d in dismi ssing he r ca se for want 5 of prose cution. 6
Dism issal f or Want of Pr osecution A tri a l c ourt ’s de c isi on

to d ism iss a

c a us e of a c tio n f or wa nt o f p ro se c uti on

is revie wed unde r an a

buse of discr etion standard. MacG regor v. Ric h , 941 S.W .2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997). A trial cour

t abuses its discretion if its decision i s arbitra ry , unrea sonable, and without any ref ere nce to a uthority , g uiding r

ules, or princ iples. Merc edes-Benz C redit Corp. v. Rhy ne , 925 S.W .2d 664, 666 (Tex. 1996).

A trial cour

t may dismiss a lawsuit for wa

nt of prosec ution under either Rule 165a
o f th e T e xa s Ru le s o f Ci v il Pr o c e d u r e o r it s inh e r e n t p o w e r . V i llarreal v. San Antonio Truck4

& Equip. , 9 94 S.W. 2d

62 8, 63 0 ( Te x. 19 99 ). The se so ur c e s p ro vid e thr e e g ro un ds fo r d ism iss a l. Id .; Bilnoski v. Pizza Inn, Inc ., 858 S.W .2d 55, 57 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1993, no writ). A trial cour

t may dismiss under Rule 165a

when a party fails t o appea r at a hearing or trial or w hen the ca se has not bee n disposed of within the Texas Supreme Court ’s t ime standards. Villarreal , 99 4 S. W.2 d at 63 0. Th e Te xas S up re me Court ’s Rul e s o f Jud ic ia l A dm inistr a tio n p ro vid e that a civil jury case should be broug ht to trial or final disposit i o n within eighte en months from the
a pp e ara nc e date . Tex
. R. J ud
. Admin. 6 (b )( 1) . Atr ia l c ourt a lso ha s inhe re nt p ow e r t o d ism iss a
c a se fo r w ant o f p ro se c uti on wh e n a pa rt y fi le s a laws uit and th en fails t o p ro se c ute the c la im t o judgme nt with due diligenc e. Villarreal , 994 S. W.2 d at 63 0; City of Houston v. Robinson , 837 S.W .2d 262, 264 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1992, no writ).

I n consideringthe question of due dilig ence , a cour t ma y examine the entire history of the litigation. No single f actor is disposi tive of a tria l court’s decision to dismiss a ca se for want of prose cution. Robinson , 837 S.W .2d at 264. Fa ctors g ener ally considere d by the trial court be fore dis mis sin g a

c a se inc lud e : (1 ) the le ng th of tim e the c a se ha s b e e n o n f ile ; ( 2) the e xten t of

a c tiv ity in t he c a se ; ( 3) wh e the r a

tr ia l se tti ngwa s r e quest ed; and (4 ) t he e xiste nc e of

a re a so na ble e xcu se for the de lay
. Se e id
.

I n this case, F ontenot filed her orig inal petition in F eb ru ar y 2001. The c ase w as
re mov e d in

Marc h 2 00 1; t

he state law c la ims we re re mand e d in June 20 01 . F on te no t file d he r f ir st
ame n d e d p e ti ti o nin

A u g u s t 2 0 0 1
. T WC ’ s p le a to th e ju r is d ic ti o nw a s f

il e d , F o n te n o t r e sponded,
an d th e p le a w a s g r an te d in F e b r u ar y 2 0 0 2
. T h e r e w a s n o f

u rth e r a c ti v it

y in th e c a s e o v e r

th e n e xt thr e e y e ars un til the c ourt iss ue d it s n oti c e se tti ngthe c a se fo r d ism iss a l.5 Fa ctors other than the ca se’s thre e-y ear dormanc y

showed a

lack of due dilige nce. For example, it did not appea r that F ontenot had attempted to e ng ag e in discover y or eve r re quested a trial setting
. Her excuse in he r late-f iled and unver ified motion to reinstate basica lly said that she did no t un de rs tand

muc h of th e c ourt

pr oc e sse s a

nd va g ue ly a c c us e d th e de fe ns e of

c a us ingso me of the de lay

and of “ manipulating” the mail. See R obinson , 837 S.W .2d at 264 (factors in dis missing for wa nt of prosec ution). Considering the above fac tors, the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion in dismi ssing the c ase unde r Rule 165a’ s time standards provision or unde r its inherent powe r.

The trial c ourt also ac ted prope rly u n d er the Travis County L ocal Rules. Unde r Travis County

L ocal Rule 8.1, the district c ourt may place a ca se on the dismissal docket whe n the
case has bee n on file for

more than e ighte en months, ha s not be en set for trial, and ha s not had any filings in 180 day s. Fontenot’ s case met the above criter ia; in fac t, there ha d been no f ilings in her
c a se fo r t hir ty -s ix mon ths
. Conclusion We hold that the t rial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissi ng the ca se for want of pr os e c uti on . H a vin g ov e rr ule d a pp e lla nt’ s is su e s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: June 12, 2007