### 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. 03-16-00216- CV

Joseph E. McClain, III , Appellan t

v. Judge Darlene Byrne, Judge Orlind a Naranjo, and Jud ge Am y Meac hum, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 126 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 6-0 0055 2, H ONO RAB LE MARGARET G. M IRAB AL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant J oseph E. McClain, I I I , sued Travis County J udg es Dar lene By rne,
Orlinda Nar anjo, and Amy Meac hum, complaining of cer tain actions the judge s had al l eg edly

t ak en, including decla

ring McClain a vexatious litigant. The trial court signe d a final judgme n t 1
dismiss ing Mc Clain’s claims with prejudice based on judicia l immuni ty . McClain now appe als. 2

The Amarillo C o u rt of Appea ls has aff irmed a separ ate order decla ring McClain to be 1
a vexatio u s litigant. See McClain v. Dell Inc. , No. 07-15-00141- CV, 2015 WL 5674885 (Tex. App.—Amar illo S ept. 24, 2015, pet. denie d) (mem. op.) (per curia m).
McClain repr esente d himself in the trial court and on appea l. We note t h at , wh i l e we 2 construe pro se p l ea d i n gs and briefs liberally , we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorney s and require them to comply with applicable laws and ru l es of proce dure. See Mansfied State Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). To do otherwise would g ive pro se litiga

nts an unfair

advanta g e over

litigants re prese nted by

counsel. See id. at 185.McClain’s appellate brief is larg ely incomprehe nsible. I t does not include citations 3

to the rec ord, and, althoug h it includes citations to authorities, M cC l ai n d o es not explain the
rele vance of these citations. Moreove r, McClain’s brief d o es n o t descr ibe the judgme nt being

appea led or addre ss wh y t h e t ri al court erre d in rende ring this judgme nt. There fore , we conclude
that any issues McClain may have are inadequa tely briefe d and prese nt nothing for our revie w. See

Tex. R. App. P

. 38.1(i); Amir-Sharif v. Haw kins , 246 S.W .3d 267, 270 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007,
pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (“A n issue on appea l unsupported by arg ument or citation to any leg al authority

prese nts nothing for this Court to revie w.”)

. We will not comb throug h the rec ord looking for err ors
McClain has not identified and explained. S ee A mi r -S

h a rif , 246 S.W .3d at 270 (“This Court has

n o d u t y t o perf

orm an independe nt revie w of the rec ord and applicable law to deter mine wheth er
the err or complained of occur red.” ). To do so would be placing ourselves in the role of McClain’s
ad v o cate

. See Valadez v. Avitia , 238 S.W .3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet. ) (“ An appellate court has no duty —or even rig ht—to p er fo rm an independe nt revie w of the rec ord and applicable law to deter

mine whether there was err or. Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appella n t , we woul d be abandoning our role as neutra l adjudicator s and become an advocate for that party .”) ( citation omitted).

For example, the following is McClain’s first issue prese nted, quoted verba tim: “Whether 3 the defe nses violation of U.S. Code › Title 29 › Chapter 6 › § 104 Enumera tion of specific acts not subject t o re s t ra i n ing order s or injunctions (e) , pursuant to the use of T.R.C.P .C. Sec. 13.001. DI SMI SSAL OF ACTI ON. (a) I s inhere nt as it lay s g rounds to invoke the Texas Bill of Rights art. 1sec.29. it’s pursuant to T.R.C.P .C. chap. 33 Pr o p o r ti o n a te r e sponsibili ty , the defe ndants Neg lige nce and fra udulent actions are being defe nded by the State which is by the intended violation of D.T.P.A. statue 17.sec.17.46 (a) (b) (3) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to a ffiliation, connec tion,
or assoc iation with, or cer tification by , another . (103 words) ”

2Be cause McClain has not adequately briefe d any issue on appe al, we aff irm the
trial court’ s judgme nt. 4

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield
Affir med Filed: Aug ust 24, 2016

We also deny

McClain’s pending motion for sanctions. 4
3