Court Opinion

ID: 6338686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-09 07:17:53.875856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:08.284835
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-21-00359-CV

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JEFFREY F. ARCHER,                                                              Appellant,

                                                  v.

MARK FINLAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF
MATAGORDA COUNTY, TEXAS,                           Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

              On appeal from the 23rd District Court
                  of Matagorda County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
                 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

       This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On November 16, 2021, appellant

filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. On

January 31, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant the brief did not comply with

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(c), 9.4 (d), 9.4(h), 9.4(i)(3), 9.4(j)(4), and 38.1(c),
(d), (g), i). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(c); 9.4 (d), (h), 9.4(i)(3), (j)(4), and 38.1(c), (d), (g), (i).

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

Appellate Procedure within thirty days of the date of the letter. On March 10, 2022,

appellant was notified for the second time that the brief filed was defective. Appellant has

failed to cure the defects in his brief and has otherwise failed to respond to the notices.

       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). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3(b), (c), where appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of these

rules or a notice from the clerk, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution.

       Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(b)(c).

                                                                      LETICIA HINOJOSA
                                                                      Justice

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of May, 2022.

                                                  2