Court Opinion

ID: 9840349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 10:09:52.932905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:11.313835
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00115-CV

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

BRANDI COLLINS,                                  §      APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      COURT AT LAW

PETER RUTTER,
APPELLEE                                         §      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).
Appellant, Brandi Collins, filed a pro se notice of appeal on May 8, 2023. The clerk’s and
reporter’s records were filed on July 10. Collins’s brief was due on or before August 9. She
filed a motion for extension on August 9, but the motion failed to comply with the service
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service). The
Clerk of this Court informed Collins that the motion failed to comply with Rule 9.5 and
requested that she file a certificate of service on or before August 15 or the motion may be
overrulled. On August 17, this Court overruled the motion for extension of time for failure to
comply with Rule 9.5. That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Collins that the brief was
past due. We further notified Collins that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution
unless a motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a
brief and showing that Appellee had not suffered material injury thereby, is filed no later than
August 28.
         The August 28 deadline passed, and Collins has not filed a brief, a motion for leave to
file a late brief, or a motion for extension of time. 1 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want
of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c).

Opinion September 13, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

         1
           Even a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all
applicable rules of procedure. See Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180,
at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                                          2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                        SEPTEMBER 13, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00115-CV

                                         BRANDI COLLINS,
                                             Appellant
                                                V.
                                          PETER RUTTER,
                                             Appellee

                                Appeal from the County Court at Law
                       of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. FM2100-289)

       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered,
it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

       It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be,
and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be certified to
the court below for observance.

                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.