NUMBER 13-14-00051-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

BLANCA EMID PETTY, Appellant,

v.

JOHN KENT PETTY, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 329th District Court

of Wharton County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes

Per Curiam

This is a pro se appeal by appellant Blanca Emid Petty from the divorce decree 

entered by the trial court dissolving her marriage to appellee John Kent Petty. A review 

of this appeal shows that the Court first received a brief from appellant on June 19, 2014. 

This brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 38.1. By letter 
2

dated June 20, 2014, the Court notified appellant of these deficiencies. The letter 

instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within thirty days

and warned her that if she failed to do so, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant 

from filing another, proceed as if appellant failed to file a brief, and dismiss the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).

On July 21, 2014, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file her amended 

brief, which this Court granted. The Court then received appellant's first amended brief

on August 25, 2014. The amended brief did not comply with rule 38.1, and by letter 

issued on August 26, 2014, the Court informed appellant of the deficiencies and instructed 

appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within thirty days. The letter 

again warned appellant that her failure to comply could result in the Court striking her 

brief and dismissing the appeal.

On October 9, 2014, appellant timely filed her second amended brief. But having 

reviewed this latest brief, we are of the opinion that appellant has again failed to comply 

with the requirements of rule 38.1; the brief presents no cognizable or discernable issues, 

and to the extent she does state any issues, she provides no coherent argument 

supported by appropriate citations to legal authority. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (i). 

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must 

comply with all applicable rules of procedure. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 

841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) ("A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as 

licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure."); see 

also Siddiqui v. Siddiqui, No. 14–07–00235–CV, 2009 WL 508260, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 3, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("While we have compassion 
3

for the plight of the pro se litigant attempting to follow the rules of legal procedure and 

substantive laws, and therefore construe pro se pleadings and briefs liberally, we must 

still hold appellant to the same standard as a licensed attorney, requiring that he follow 

those same rules and laws . . . . To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair 

advantage over a litigant represented by counsel."). Appellant has failed to do so in this 

case. As neutral and unbiased adjudicators of the disputes before us, we may not 

construct arguments for the parties or conduct research supporting those arguments; if 

we did, we would be acting as advocates for the parties. See Plummer v. Reeves, 93 

S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. denied). And to proceed in this case, 

that is exactly the role the Court would be forced to play. We are prohibited from acting 

as such. See id. 

Our having twice given appellant opportunities to comply with the briefing rules

and extended periods of time to do so, our having warned her at least twice about the 

consequence of the failure to comply, and her having thrice tendered to this Court briefs 

that wholly fail to comply with the rules, we STRIKE as deficient appellant's October 9, 

2014 brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). Because appellant has failed to comply with 

the rules, we DISMISS the appeal.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 30th

day of October, 2014.

 

1 Appellant's other pending motions are DENIED as moot.