Court Opinion

ID: 9892291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 07:09:24.503354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:09.273330
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-23-00236-CV
     ___________________________

     DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant

                     V.

 SUGAR CREEK APARTMENTS, Appellee

 On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2
          Tarrant County, Texas
      Trial Court No. 2022-001468-2

    Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is Deloris Phillips’s third attempted appeal from the trial court’s orders

denying her various postjudgment motions.

      In December 2022, the trial court signed a default judgment in Phillips’s favor

against Appellee Sugar Creek Apartments. See Phillips v. Sugar Creek Apartments (Phillips

I), No. 02-23-00107-CV, 2023 WL 3643674, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 25,

2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). After the trial court’s plenary power had expired, Phillips

filed a “Motion to Preserve [the] Record.” Id. The trial court denied the motion, and

Phillips attempted to appeal from that denial. Id. Because that order wasn’t appealable,

we dismissed Phillips’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id.

      Phillips then filed additional postjudgment motions: (1) a motion to appoint

counsel and a special master and (2) a motion to amend the judgment. See Phillips v.

Sugar Creek Apartments (Phillips II), No. 02-23-00192-CV, 2023 WL 4501814, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 13, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The trial court

denied those motions, and Phillips again attempted to appeal. Id. As with Phillips’s

first appeal, we dismissed her second appeal for want of jurisdiction because the two

orders she had attempted to appeal were not appealable. See id.

      Now, Phillips attempts to appeal from the trial court’s July 7, 2023 order

denying yet another postjudgment motion—“Plaintiff’s Verified Motions for

Expedited Hearing on the Record for Appealable Order and Final Judgment for

Orders (June 05, 2023) Denying Motions for Appointment of Counsel & Special

                                            2
Master and Denied Motion for Amended Default Judgment with Motion for

Appealable Order and Final Judgment Attached Plaintiff[’s] Motions for

Reconsideration of Orders (06.05.2023) Pursuant [to] 18 U.S.C §1621, 28 U.S.C

§1746, 28 U.S.C. §1915.” On July 19, 2023, we wrote to Phillips to express our

concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s July 7,

2023 order did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order.

We warned her that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any

party filed a response by July 31, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.

          At Phillips’s request, we have twice extended the deadline for her to respond to

our letter. On October 9, 2023—the day Phillips’s response was due after she had

received two extensions—she filed a third extension request, asking for an additional

60 days to respond. We denied her request, and we have received no response to our

letter.

          For the same reasons set out in our opinions dismissing Phillips’s two earlier

appeals, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Phillips II,

2023 WL 4501814, at *1; Phillips I, 2023 WL 3643674, at *1; see also Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a), 43.2(f).

                                              3
                                  /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                  Elizabeth Kerr
                                  Justice

Delivered: October 19, 2023

                              4