## In the Court o f Appe als Second Appella te District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00226

- CV

___________________________

O n Appe al from the 352nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 352

- 301866

- 18

Per Curiam Memorandum Opin ion 

### D RUE 

### A LLEN 

### H OLLIS 

### , Appellant

V



### . P ROBATE 

### C OURT 

### N O



### . 1 OF 

### T ARRANT 

### C OUNTY 

### , P ROBATE 

### C OURT 

### N O



### . 2 OF 

### T ARRA NT 

### C OUNTY 

### , T ARRANT 

### C OUNTY 

### S HERIFF 

### B ILL 

### E. W A

YBOURN 

### , AND 

### T ARRANT 

### C OUNTY 

### H OSPITAL 

### D ISTRICT D 

### / B 

### / A 

### JPS H EALTH 

### N ETWORK 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant D rue Allen Hol lis attempts to appeal from the trial c ourt ’ s interlocutory order 1 gra nting summary judgment in fa vor of Appellees Probate Court
No. 1 o f Tarrant County, Probate Court No. 2 of Tarrant County, Tarrant Count y S he riff B i ll E. Waybourn, an d Tarra nt County Hospital Dist rict d/ b/a J PS Health
Network (collectively, Tarrant County )

. 2 The trial court si gned the int er locutory order

on May 31, 2019 , making Hollis ’ s notic e of appeal due June 20, 2 019

. See Tex. R. A p p. P. 26 .1(b) (statin g that a notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal mu st be filed within 20 days after the judgment or order signed) , 28.1( a) (stating that appeal s from

1 The tr ial

- court clerk has informed us that parties and cla ims remain pending in th e trial court a nd that the tri al court ha s no t signed a final judgment

.
2 We have jurisdic tion to consider appeals from final judgment s or from inter lo cuto ry orders made immediately appealable by statute

. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W. 3d 19 1, 195 (Tex. 2001). H er e, Tarrant County ’ s summary

- judgment grounds included governmental , judicial , and official immunity. Thus, had H ollis ’ s noti ce of appeal been timely, we would have had jur isdic tion to co nsider this ap peal insof ar as the trial court cou ld have dismissed some of Hollis ’ s claims on im munity grounds. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code An n. § 51.014( a)(8) (providing for an appeal from an i nterlocutory order granting a governmental unit’ s plea to the jurisdicti on) ; Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice v. Simons , 140 S.W.3d 338, 349 (Tex. 2004) (observing that an interlocutory appeal may be taken under section 51.014(a)(8) whether a jurisdictional argumen t is presented in a plea to the jurisdict ion or a summar y
- judgmen t motion becaus e the right of appeal is tied to the substance of the issue raised and not to any particular procedural vehicle) ; Liv erman v. Denton Cty. , No. 02

- 17

- 00240

- CV , 2017 WL 637 7437, at * 1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 14, 20 1 7, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( dismissing p ort ion of appeal from order granting jurisdictional p lea that complained of trial court’s dismissal of claims against g overnment officials in their individu al c apacities bu t addressing portion of appeal that complained o f dismissal of claims ag ainst govern men tal unit and government officials in their officia l capacities)

.3 interlocu tory orders are a ccelerated appeals)

. H o llis filed his notice of a ppeal on June 21, 2019 , one da y late. On Jul y 18, 2019, we notified Hollis o f our co ncern that we lacked jurisdiction over this app eal because his notice of app eal was untimely

. We war n ed Hollis that we would di sm iss the appeal for want of juri sdiction unless he o r any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a respo nse by July 29, 2019 , showing a reasonable explanation for the lat e filing of the n otice of appeal

. See Tex. R. A p p. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b), 42.3( a) , 43.2(f). We have rec ei ved no response.
The time for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdic tional, an d abs ent a timely

- filed notice of appeal or motion for e xtension of ti me to file the notice of appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. 2, 25 .1(b), 26.1, 26. 3 , 28.1(b) ; Jones v. Ci ty of
Housto n , 976 S.W. 2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998) ; Verburgt v. Dorn er , 95 9 S. W .2d 615,
617 (Tex. 1997)

. A m otion for extension of time is neces sarily implied when an appellant ac ting in good faith files a notice o f appea l beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, b ut within the 15

- day period in which the appellant would be en tit led to move to

e xtend the filing deadline under rule 26.3. See Jones , 976 S .W.2 d at 677; Ver burgt , 959 S.W.2d at 6 17 ; see also Tex. R. App . P. 26.1, 2 6.3 , 28.1 (b)

. B u t even when an extensio n motion is implied , an appellant is still requir ed to provide a reasonable

ex planation for the de lay in filing the notice of appeal

. Se e Jo nes , 976 S .W.2 d at 677 ; Linville v. Le uty Ave. A partments , No. 02

- 18

- 00186

- CV , 2018 WL 37 6 3934, at *1 (Tex.4 A p p.

— Fort Worth Aug. 9, 2018, no pet.) (per c uriam) (mem. op
. ) ; see also Tex. R.
A p p. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), (b)(2)(A), 26.3(b)

. Here, Hollis ’ s notice of appeal was untimely but was filed wi thin the 15

- day
per iod in which an exten sion is impl ied

. Even so, H ollis was still required to provid e an explanation for needin g an e xtension. See Jones , 976 S .W.2 d at 677; Ver burgt , 959 S.W.2d at 6 17 ; Linville , 2018 W L 376 3934, at *1

. Because h e did not, his notice of appeal is untim ely. See L inville , 201 8 W L 376 3934, at *1

. Ac cordingly, we di smiss the appeal for want of juris dic tion. 3 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43 .2(f); Jones , 976 S .W.2 d at 677; Ver burgt , 959 S.W.2d at 917 ; Linville , 2018 WL 376 3934, at *1

.

Per Curiam
Delivered : August 30, 2019

3 We dismiss Tarrant County ’ s “ Motion to D ismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ” as moo t.