NUMBER 13-16-00703-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DIANE GLORIA SILVA, Appellant,

v.

U. S. BANK NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR 

CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN 

TRUST INC. 2016-NCI ASSET-BACKED 

PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 5

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on April 19, 2017. On 

October 20, 2017, the Court granted appellant’s sixth request for an extension of time to 
2

file the brief and ordered appellant to file the brief on or before November 13, 2017. 

Appellant was advised that no further extensions would be granted. 

On November 14, 2017, appellant filed a motion for leave to file the brief and a 

brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief 

failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1. Appellant was instructed to file an amended brief.

On December 4, 2017, the Court received an amended brief. The Clerk of the 

Court notified appellant that the amended brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (b), (c), 

(d), (g), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX. R. 

APP. P. 38.1. The brief does not contain a table of contents with references to the pages 

of the brief as required by Rule 38.1(b); does not contain an index of authorities arranged 

alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited as 

required by Rule 38.1(c); the statement of the case is not supported by record references 

as required by Rule 38.1(d); the statement of facts is not supported by record references 

as required by Rule 38.1(g); does not contain a clear and concise argument for the 

contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record; and does 

not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). 

Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the 

Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit 

appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under 
3

which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 

38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). 

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

must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. 

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). If a party files a brief that does not comply 

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that party files an amended brief that 

likewise does not comply with the rules, “the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party 

from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.” TEX. R. APP. P. 

38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has 

failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Accordingly, we strike appellant’s non-conforming brief and order the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 

42.3(b)(c). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

18th day of January, 2018.