Court Opinion

ID: 9896420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-11 11:12:22.34758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:54.476418
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00262-CV

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                         TYLER, TEXAS

RONNIE LYNN GILBERT,                                  §       APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                    §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BOB YORK,
APPELLEE                                              §       SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         PER CURIAM

        This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
        Ronnie Lynn Gilbert, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2023. On
October 11, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain
the information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section
51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service); see
also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must
be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notice warned
that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before October 23, the appeal would
be referred to the Court for dismissal. On October 19, Appellant filed a motion for extension of
time, which failed to comply with appellate Rules 9.5 and 10.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1
(contents of motions). Thus, this Court gave Appellant until October 30 to comply with the

        1
            Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all
applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties
represented by counsel. 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.).
rules. This deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant motion for extension of time,
a compliant notice of appeal, or other response to this Court’s notices.
         Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5 and Section 51.017(a),
the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’
notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal because
appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the
clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered November 8, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         NOVEMBER 8, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00262-CV

                                    RONNIE LYNN GILBERT,
                                          Appellant
                                             V.
                                         BOB YORK,
                                           Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                          of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 22-2185-A)

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

                    It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; 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.