Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W. Front. St., Ste 354

Tyler, Texas 75702

RE: No. 12-14-00332-CV

Robert C. Morris vs. Sherri Milligan Et Al.

Dear Court Clerk,

July 6, 2015 __-

TnXDuTcOURTOFJAPPEALS

12thCoyrtolA^Ei2li^ict

JUL 13 2015

TYLER TEXAS

CATHY S.LUSK.CLI

Please find enclosed my Appellant's Opposition To Appellee's Motion For Extension

Of Time to be filed and presented to the Court for consideration and ruling, in the

above styled numbered cause.

Please note on this date, a true and correct copy has been served upon the

opposing counsels in this matter.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter, it is greatly appreciated

and welcomed.

Sincerely,

enclosure(s): l(3pgs)

cc: file

Veronica Chidester, Asst. AG

Patrick Brezik, Asst. AG

Robert C. Morris

Appellant Pro Se

TDCJ-ID # 1311083

Smith Unit

1313 CR 19

Lamesa, TX 79331
IN THE

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT C. MORRIS §

vs. §

SHERRI MILLIGAN, ET AL. §

NO. 12-14-00332-CV

T/C NO. 349-

FILED IN Cw

12thQourt£

r

APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE'S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

COMES NOW, Robert C. Morris, Appellant Pro Se, in the abrw^_s^yTed~number€

cause, and respectfully files and submits this his Opposition To Appellee's Motion

For Extension Of Time. Morris shows the following in his opposition.

I.

The Court filed Morris's appellate brief on April 20, 2015, however the Appellee's

counsel received his copy several days prior, as the Certificate of Service and

Motion For Leave indicates, as an issue with the postmark delayed the Court's official

filing. Thus, the Appellee had over 30 days to prepare and file it's brief. It did

not by the May 20, 2015 deadline.

On June 18, 2015, Morris inquired with the Court regarding the Appellee's brief

or Motion For Extension of Time having been filed. The Court responded on June 24,

2015 with a letter stating that the Appellee's had not filed anything, which was

e-mailed to Appellee's counsel.

On June 29, 2015, the Appellee's filed a Motion For Extension of Time, which

Morris received notification from the Court in a letter dated the same date, received

on June 2, 2015. However, Morris has not been served a copy of Appellee's motion

as of this date of filing this opposition.

II.

The Court should deny Appellee's Motion For Extension of Time due to the late

filing date. The Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly states time for filing for

an extension of time, which must be within 10 days of the filing deadline. T.R.A.P.£§.6

The Appellee's motion is way beyond that deadline, as it was filed 39 days after

filing deadline for brief and only after notice from the Court 34 days later past

deadline.

The Court should strike the Appellee's Motion for failure to serve a copy on

opposing party, as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. T.R.A.P. 9*f This

is the second incident the Attorney General's Office has failed to serve Morris
a copy of a pleading filed. The other was in the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Fifth

Circuit case.

Finally, the Court should deny Appellee's Motion for unreasonable reason for

delay, due to the lack of diligence by said counsel(s) for Appellees. Morris noticed

a different counsel from previous letters from the Court and proceedings at the

District Court level. If counsel of record has changed, once again, no notice has

been provided. This reason for delay - change of counsel - is the second time in

this case that the Appellees relied upon change of counsel for failure to timely

file a pleading.

Appellant Morris is proceeding Pro Se, who while not held to the same standards,

must still meet every deadline set by the rules. If Morris misses a deadline by

some 30 days with no request for extension of time timely filed, he would be denied

and waive any claims, arguments or response. The Appellee's would be the first to

request such a ruling from the Court against Morris.

The Attorney General is held to the higher standard due to the professionalism

and education. There cannot be any legitimate reason for not complying with filing

deadlines. The Attorney General sure be considered deficient in his performance for

such action.

Therefore, Morris contends the Appellee's have failed to adhere to the Rules

of Appellate Procedure and based upon decisions by the various courts have waived

the right to file appellate brief in this matter. Thus the Court should deny Motion

For Extension of Time for failure to timely file such request and strike any Appellee

arguments or counter-claims on the issues raised by Morris. The Court should further

strike the Motion for failure to serve Morris a copy.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant Robert C. Morris, prays this

Honorable Court denies the Appellee's Motion For Extension of Time for the reasons

put forth herein and Orders the waiver of any claims or arguments.

Respectfully Submitted,

DATED: July 6, 2015

Robert C. Morris

Appellant Pro Se

TDCJ-ID # 1311083

Smith Unit

1313 CR 19

Lamesa, Texas 79331
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Robert C. Morris, declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true

and correct, and further certify that a true and correct copy has been served upon

Veronica Chidester, Asst Attorney General, PO Box 1748, Austin, Texas 78767 and

Patrick Brezik, Asst. Attorney General, PO Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548 by

placing in the Smith Unit/TDCJ-ID Prison Mail System on this the 6th Day of July, 2015.

C. Morris

Applicant Pro Se

TDCJ-ID # 1311083

Smith Unit

Dawson County, Texas