Court Opinion

ID: 4879969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-30 07:34:01.102729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:29.502008
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-21-00076-CV

                           COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                        CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

JEFFREY F. ARCHER,                                                       Appellant,

                                             v.

MARK A. FINLAY,                                     Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

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

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

              Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
                Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

       This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On March 30, 2021, appellant

appeared pro se and filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. On April 6, 2021, appellant filed a corrected brief. The amended

brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.4, 38.1.
       On April 28, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant the corrected brief did

not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(c), 9.4 (d), 9.4(h), 9.4(j)(4), or

38.1(b, c, e, g, i, k). Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and

notified that if the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike

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

file a brief, under which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant has failed to cure the defects in his

first amended brief.

       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). If a party files a brief that does not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and that party files an amended brief that

likewise does not comply with the rules, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party

from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has

failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

       Accordingly, we strike appellant’s non-conforming brief and order the appeal

dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b)(c).

                                                                NORA LONGORIA
                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
26th day of August, 2021.

                                             2