Court Opinion

ID: 9964205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 09:10:01.513554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:13.974569
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued April 25, 2024

                                        In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                       For The

                            First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                                NO. 01-23-00783-CV
                             ———————————
                        ALI NAWAZ PATHAN, Appellant
                                           V.
                      MARIA PEREZ BARBOZA, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 113th District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 2022-75534

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Ali Nawaz Pathan, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court’s

rendition of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Maria Perez Barboza, in

Barboza’s suit against Pathan for trespass to try title, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud,
fraudulent inducement, “filing fraudulent deed and lien,” unjust enrichment, money

had and received, and declaratory judgment.

      We dismiss the appeal.

      On January 29, 2024, Pathan filed an appellant’s brief with this Court. On

February 6, 2024, this Court notified Pathan that his appellant’s brief did not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because, among other things, it did not

“give a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s judgment or order appealed

from, and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel”; contain a table

of contents “indicat[ing] the subject matter of each issue or point, or group of issues

or points”; contain an index of authorities; “state concisely the nature of the case,”

“the course of the proceedings,” and “the trial court’s disposition of the case,”

“supported by record references”; “include a statement explaining why oral

argument should or should not be permitted”; “state concisely all issues or points

presented for review”; “state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to

the issues or points presented,” “supported by record references”; “contain a

succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the

brief”; and “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a),

(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i). Pathan’s January 29, 2024 appellant’s brief also

                                           2
failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4. See TEX. R. APP. P.

9.4.

       Thus, on February 6, 2024, the Court struck Pathan’s January 29, 2024

appellant’s brief and ordered Pathan to file a corrected appellant’s brief that

complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within thirty days of the date

of the Court’s order. The Court informed Pathan that if he did not file a corrected

appellant’s brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, it

would strike his corrected brief, prohibit Pathan from filing another, proceed as if

Pathan had failed to file an appellant’s brief, and dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); see also Tucker v. Fort Worth & W. R.R.

Co., No. 02-19-00221-CV, 2020 WL 3969586, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June

18, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (striking amended brief and dismissing appeal for

want of prosecution where appellant ordered to file amended brief but amended brief

also failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure); Tyurin v. Hirsch &

Westheimer, P.C., No. 01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). On March 4, 2024,

appellant filed his corrected brief.

       “An appellate brief is meant to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and

to present argument that will enable the court to decide the case.” Schied v. Merritt,

No. 01-15-00466-CV, 2016 WL 3751619, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

                                           3
July 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (internal quotations omitted). The Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and organization of an

appellant’s brief. Id.; see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. They contain “specific requirements

for briefing that require, among other things, that an appellant provide . . . an

argument that is clear and concise with appropriate citations to authorities and the

record.” Tyurin, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1 (internal quotations omitted); Lemons v.

Garmond, No. 01-15-00570-CV, 2016 WL 4701443, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] Sept. 8, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (internal quotations omitted); see

also TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Irisson v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, No. 13-19-00239-CV,

2020 WL 6343336, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Oct. 29, 2020, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant’s brief fails to contain a clear and concise

argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities, the

appellate court is not responsible for doing the legal research that might support a

party’s contentions.”).

      The appellate briefing requirements are mandatory. M&E Endeavors LLC v.

Air Voice Wireless LLC, Nos. 01-18-00852-CV, 01-19-00180-CV, 2020 WL

5047902, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 17, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

“Only when [the Court is] provided with proper briefing may [it] discharge [its]

responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal

one way or the other.” Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d

                                         4
893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); see also Roberts for Roberts v. City of

Texas City, No. 01-21-00064-CV, 2021 WL 5702464, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dis.] Dec. 2, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (appellate court may not “abandon[] its

role as judge and assum[e] the role of advocate for a party”).

      In Texas, an individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to

represent himself at trial and on appeal. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 7; Steele v. Humphreys,

No. 05-19-00988-CV, 2020 WL 6440499, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 3, 2020,

no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see also Ex parte Shaffer, 649

S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex. 1983). The right of self-representation carries with it the

responsibility to adhere to the rules of evidence and procedure, including the Texas

Appellate Rules of Procedure, if a party chooses to represent himself at the appellate

level. Steele, 2020 WL 6440499, at *2; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see also

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tex. 1978) (“[N]o basis exists

for differentiating between litigants represented by counsel and litigants not

represented by counsel in determining whether the rules of procedure must be

followed.”); Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 2-07-313-CV, 2008 WL

4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“On

appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly present her case.”). Thus, a pro

se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney and must comply with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Garrett v. Lee, No. 01-21-00498-CV,

                                           5
2021 WL 5702177, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 2, 2021, pet. denied)

(mem. op.); Holz v. United States of Am. Corp., No. 05-13-01241-CV, 2014 WL

6555024, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Yeldell,

2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (“[A]ll parties appearing in the appellate courts of Texas

must conform to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.”).

      An appellate court must examine an appellant’s brief for compliance with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Steele, 2020 WL 6440499, at *2; Lipscomb v.

City of Dallas Police, No. 05-16-01090-CV, 2017 WL 1149674, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Mar. 27, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). If the court determines that the briefing

rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended,

supplemented, or redrawn. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); Irisson, 2020 WL 6343336,

at *3; see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284

(Tex. 1994). When an appellant is allowed an opportunity to file a corrected

appellant’s brief, he is given a reasonable amount of time to do so. See Irisson, 2020

WL 6343336, at *3. If the appellant files another appellant’s brief that does not

comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellate court may strike

the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if the appellant failed

to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); Tucker, 2020 WL 3969586, at *1 (striking

amended brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution where appellant

ordered to file amended brief but amended brief still did not comply with Texas

                                           6
Rules of Appellate Procedure); Tyurin, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (same); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1) (where appellant has failed to file brief, appellate court

may dismiss appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

      Although Pathan was given an opportunity to file a corrected appellant’s brief

that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, he has failed to do so.

See Garrett, 2021 WL 5702177, at *3 (appellant given opportunity to cure defects

in his briefing, but he failed to do so); Steele, 2020 WL 6440499, at *1–3 (same).

On March 4, 2024, Pathan filed a corrected appellant’s brief, but it does not “state

concisely the nature of the case,” “the course of the proceedings,” and “the trial

court’s disposition of the case,” “supported by record references”; “state concisely

and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented,”

“supported by record references”; “contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement

of the arguments made in the body of the brief”; and “contain a clear and concise

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to

the record.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (g), (h), (i); In re Hammond, No.

04-17-00371-CV, 2018 WL 843062, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 14,

2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (appellant’s brief violated Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure where it did not “include a clear and concise argument for the contentions

made”); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 896 (“[S]tatements of fact must be supported by

direct references to the record that are precise in locating the fact asserted. If record

                                           7
references are not made or are inaccurate, misstated, or misleading, the brief fails.

And, just as importantly, existing legal authority applicable to the facts and the

questions [the appellate court is being] called on to answer must be accurately cited.

References to legal authority that have nothing to do with the issue to be decided are

contrary to the requirement[s] of [the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure].

References to sweeping statements of general law are rarely appropriate. If [the

court is] not provided with existing legal authority that can be applied to the facts of

the case, the brief fails.”); see also Golden v. Milstead Towing & Storage, Nos.

09-21-00043-CV to 09-21-00045-CV, 2022 WL 1412303, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont May 5, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (appellant’s brief did not comply with

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) where it was disjointed and difficult to

follow and appellant’s arguments were confusing); Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593

S.W.3d 398, 402–03 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) (appellant’s brief did not

comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure where it did not provide “succinct,

clear, and accurate arguments addressing how [appellant’s] complaints ha[d]

merit”).

      Pathan’s March 4, 2024 corrected appellant’s brief also does not comply with

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4; see also Porter v.

Kennard Law PC, No. 01-22-00153-CV, 2022 WL 11413164, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 20, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (striking appellant’s

                                           8
corrected brief and dismissing appeal where corrected brief, among other things, did

not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4); Shull v. Westover Crossing

(San Antonio) Homeowners’ Ass’n, No. 04-15-00692-CV, 2016 WL 7119051, at *1–

2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (striking appellant’s

amended brief and dismissing appeal where amended brief did comply with Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4). This Court cannot remedy the deficiencies in

Pathan’s corrected appellant’s brief for him. See Porter, 2022 WL 11413164, at *5–

6; Strange v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet.

denied).

      When, as here, an appellant files an appellant’s brief that does not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and then files a corrected brief or

amended brief that also does not comply, “the [appellate] court may strike the brief,

prohibit the [appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if the [appellant] had

failed to file a brief.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); see also Garrett, 2021 WL 5702177,

at *3; Tyurin, 2017 WL 4682191, at *2. When an appellant fails to file an appellant’s

brief, the Court may dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1); Garrett, 2021 WL 5702177, at *3; Tyurin, 2017 WL 4682191, at *2.

Accordingly, we strike Pathan’s March 4, 2024 corrected appellant’s brief, and we

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); Garrett, 2021 WL

                                         9
5702177, at *3; Tyurin, 2017 WL 4682191, at *2. We dismiss any pending motions

as moot.

                                             Julie Countiss
                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.

                                        10