Court Opinion

ID: 9918549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-15 11:09:15.521372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:27.749455
License: Public Domain

In the
                   Court of Appeals
           Second Appellate District of Texas
                    at Fort Worth
                ___________________________

                     No. 02-23-00109-CV
                ___________________________

                JULIETTE GALLANT, Appellant

                                 V.

 CITY OF FORT WORTH, TARRANT COUNTY, KELLER INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, TARRANT COUNTY COLLEGE DISTRICT, TARRANT
  COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND TARRANT REGIONAL WATER
                         DISTRICT

             On Appeal from the 348th District Court
                     Tarrant County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 348-D25260-20

             Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
             Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this delinquent tax suit, pro se Appellant Juliette Gallant appeals the trial

court’s judgment in favor of Appellees City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Keller

Independent School District, Tarrant County College District, Tarrant County

Hospital District, and Tarrant Regional Water District. Having considered Appellees’

motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, we will dismiss this appeal.

      Gallant’s appellate brief was originally due on August 7, 2023. See Tex. R. App.

P. 38.6(a). We informed Gallant of this deadline via a July 6, 2023 letter on the same

day that the reporter’s record was filed. In the ensuing months, Gallant filed more

than a dozen motions with this court.1 In disposing of these many motions, we

extended the deadline for Gallant’s brief to October 23, 2023. Gallant requested

another deadline extension which we granted on October 20, 2023, ordering that her

brief was due on November 27, 2023.           Gallant yet again requested a deadline

extension on November 3, 2023,2 which we denied, reiterating in our order that her

brief remained due on November 27, 2023.

      1
       Most of Gallant’s motions were denied because they were meritless, mooted,
or asked us to act outside of our jurisdiction.
      2
       In this motion, Gallant requested sixty-one more days to file her brief and
proffered numerous reasons why she needed further time to complete her brief,
including that: there were three federal holidays in the month of November 2023; she
can only access legal databases at a local law library, which is closed in the evenings
and on weekends; the legal library only has eight computers with access to legal
databases; “[f]rigid temps; freeze warnings; weather conditions and heavy rains have
begun impacting the DFW metroplex, heavy rains may lead to snow”; “[c]ity power

                                          2
       On November 28, 2023, Appellees filed their motion to dismiss this appeal for

want of prosecution because Gallant still had not filed her appellant’s brief. We

notified Gallant on December 14, 2023, that her appeal may be dismissed unless she

filed on or before December 27, 2023, her brief along with a motion reasonably

explaining her failure to file it in a timely fashion. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b),

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We received no brief from Gallant or attendant motion explaining

its delay.

       Instead, on December 21, 2023, Gallant filed a response to Appellees’ motion

to dismiss. In her response, Gallant asserts that Appellees have refused to furnish

“98% of prima facie evidence” related to the underlying tax dispute. She has asked us

on various occasions to compel Appellees to provide this evidence, and we have

denied these requests. She explains that “[a]waiting for the 98% of prima facie

evidence is the reason for seeking an extension to file the Appellant’s brief.” Because

we have previously and explicitly denied her such relief, this explanation for her

delayed brief does not hold water.

outages need to be considered/factored towards the time requested for the
extension”; she has only sixteen days in December, twenty days in January, and
sixteen days in February in which to access legal databases; Appellees and their
attorney have the advantage of “round the clock” access to legal databases; and that
she would have completed her brief “before the end of December 2023” had
Appellees’ attorney “upheld/exercised the Tex. R. App. P. 6.6 and the Tex. R. Civ.
P. 11.”

                                          3
      All told, Gallant has filed nearly twenty motions with this court. But despite

her prolific motion filings and receiving nearly four months in deadline extensions,

she has failed to file her appellant’s brief and to provide us with a reasonable

explanation for the delay. Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss and

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),

43.2(f). Additionally, we deny all of Gallant’s outstanding motions.

                                                     /s/ Brian Walker

                                                     Brian Walker
                                                     Justice

Delivered: January 11, 2024

                                           4