## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 13 - 00062 - CV CORNELIUS R. SEPHUS #635586, APPELLANT

V. SGT R. ROBERTSON ET AL, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 251st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 99,527 - C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding



### June 17 , 2013 ORDER Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. In response to this Court’s notice th at the appellant’s brief in this case was past due and permitting appellant pro se, inmate Cornelius R. Sephus, to file his brief on or before May 28, 2013, we received from appellant a document he identifies as “The Plaintiff Appellant’s Brief.” The envelope in which the b rief was delivered bore a postmark of May 29, 2013, the day after his deadline for filing the brief. Ordinarily, a strict application of the rules would mean that appellant’s brief would not be considered timely. See T EX . R. A PP . P .2

9. 2 . However, based on the mailbox rule as it has been applied to this particular situation, we will consider appellant’s brief as file d with in the deadline the Court imposed on him. We do so because it appears from both the certificate of service attached to appellant’s bri ef and the letter accompanying it addressing the Clerk of the Court that appellant delivered the document to the mail on May 25, 2013. Recognizing that pro se inmate litigants have no choice other than to place their legal mail in the hand s of prison offi cials for processing, both the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals have implemented a modified mailbox rule that measures the timelines s of a submission based up the date on which a pro se inmate litigant place d his document into th e prison mail system. Warner v. Glass , 135 S.W.3d 681, 682, 684 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) ; Campbell v. State , 320 S.W.3d 338, 343
– 44 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010)
. Here, it would appear that appellant placed his document in the mail on May 25, 2013. Cf. Ramos v. Richardson , 228 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007 ) (per curiam) (referring to certificate of service and letter accompanying filing as proof of date when mail was placed in prison mail system). Based on that representation, we conclude the appellant’s b rief has been timely received by the Clerk of this Court per the mailbox rule as applied by Warner . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 9.2 ; Warner , 135 S.W.3d at 684 . Nonetheless, the Court has directed the Clerk of the Court to reject the brief for filing. Appellant’s brief fails to comply with the applicable rules of procedure in nearly every formal and substantive aspect. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.1. Of the most nota ble defects is one of substance: a ppellant make s no attempt to advance a discernible basis3

upon which the Court could reverse the trial court’s order dismissing h is case for want of prosecution; instead, he urges the merits of his suit against various pris on officials for a variety of misdeeds and ongoing maltreatment of appellant. Again, we see nothing urging why the trial court erred by dismissing his case for want of prosecution. Even construing appellant’s brief liberally as we are directed to do, a pp ellant’s brief fails to comply with the rules and is hereby rejected on that basis. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.9. Considering that we have a timely but noncompliant brief that has been tendered, we issue this order allowing appellant a final chance to file a brief that is both timely and compliant with the applicable rules of appellate procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.9(a), (b). Appellant’ s redrafted brief must be filed on or before July 8, 2013. Upon appellant’s failure to timely file a brief which substantially complies with the rules, this Court will strike said brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as though appellant had failed to file a brief at all. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.9(a). In that event, the Court is authorized to di smiss this appeal for want of prosecution
. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 38.8(a)(1). Per Curiam.