### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00102- CV

Jairus Pe gues, Appellan t

v. Texas Workforce Com m ission and Ad ecc o USA, Inc., Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 0-0 0153 6, H ONO RAB LE JO HN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant J airus Peg ues filed his notice of appea l on Fe bruar y 13, 2012. He has since filed additional notices of appea l titled “F inal Notice of Appea l” and “Amende d Notice of Appea l,” adding order s and judg ments that he wishes to appe al. On May 17, we sent Peg ues a letter stating that we had been informed that he had not paid for the rec ord nor made arr ang ements to pay for the
rec ord, asking him to provide a status repor t no later than M ay 1 7 or risk dismiss al of his appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b) (g overning dismiss al for want of prosec ution). In response , Peg ues sent a letter explaining that he ha d reque sted the names and addresses of all court reporter s who might have been prese nt at Pegues’s hear ings. He also sent an Amended Dec laration of Record, which lists the hear ings in que stion a nd states that he “ wants eve ry thing in the Court Rec ord” r elated to those hear ings. In his letter request i n g co n t ac t information for the court repor ters, P egues st ated, “This
case is filed under the Tex as Unemploy ment Compensation Act, and ther e ar e no fee s for appeals pursuant to Texas L abor Code Cha pter 212.210 a

nd Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 35.3.”Although Peg ues asser ts that he was not require d to pay any fee s or costs in an appea l under the unemploy

ment compensation act, we have explained to him in an ear lier cause appar ently related to the same underlying fac ts t h at o u r revie w of the labor code, the administrative code, 1 and the rules uncover ed no provisions that allowed a party ap p ea l i n g under the unemploy ment compensation act to appea l without paying court fee s or for the appellate rec ord. See Tex. L ab. Code Ann. § 212.210 (West 2006) (“A n appea l bond is not require d in an appea l from a decision of a trial court in an action under this subchapte r.”) ; Tex
. R
. Ap p . P
. 35.3 (trial and appellate courts are responsi b l e fo r en suring that rec ord is timely filed). Instead, rule 20.1 of the rules of appellate 2 proce dure g overns when a party may appea l without pay ing fee s or for the rec ord. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. We have informed P egues on sever al occasions that an affidavit of i n d i gen ce is require d to proce ed without paying f ees a nd costs, but he has not complied with rule 20.1.

3 Peg ues has not arr ang ed fo r the cler k’s or repor

ter’s rec ord to be filed, paid his fee s, or filed an aff

idavit of indige nce that would al l o w him to proce ed without paying costs on appea l. We there fore dismiss the appea l for want o f p ro s ec u t i on. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b);

See Pegue

s v. Te x a s W o r k force Commission , No. 03-11-00299- CV, 2012 Tex. App. L EXI S 1 4356, at *1-9 (Tex. App.—Austin May 25, 2012, no pet. h.) (dismissing appea l afte r Peg ues failed to file aff idavit of indige nce, c omply with appellate r

ules, or pay

for r ecor d). The requireme nt for an appeal b o n d wa s repe aled in 1997. See Tex. R. App. P
. 25 cmt. 2 (“Comment on 1997 chang e: . . . I n civil case s, the require ment of an appea l bond is repe aled.” ); see also former Tex. R. App. P. 40 (civil appea l perf ecte d “whe n the bond, cash deposit or aff idavit in lieu there of has been filed or made, or if aff idavit is contested, when the contest is overr uled”; when secur ity is not require d, appea l perf ecte d by written notice of appea l). Section 212.210 was enac ted in 1993, befor e the appe al-bond re quirement wa s eliminated. See Tex. L ab. Code Ann. § 212.210 (West 2006). See P egues , 2012 Tex. App. L EXI S 4356, at *2, 7. 3 2see also Zamudio v. Zamudio , No. 0 8 -0 3 -00139-CV, 2003 Tex. App. L EXI S 8772, at *2-3

( T e x. A p p . — E l Pa s o O c t. 9 , 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n ie d ) ( me m. o p . ) ( d is mi s s in g a p p e a l f o r w a nt o f p r o s e c uti o n wh en ap pellant did not establish indige nce, trial court had alre ady deter mined appellant had n o t established indige n ce , reporter’s rec ord and brief wer e not filed, and court had g iven notice and
rea sonable time to cure defic iencies)
.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Jul y

13, 2012

3