Court Opinion

ID: 9840350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 10:09:53.785856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:25:11.172254
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00203-CV

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                           TYLER, TEXAS

AUTHOR JAMES MANNING JR.,                                §        APPEAL FROM THE 307TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                       §        JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IN THE
INTEREST OF S.M., APPELLEE                               §        GREGG 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).
        On August 8, 2023, Author James Manning, Jr. filed a pro se petition for permissive
appeal. That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Manning that the petition failed to
comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3 and gave Manning until August 18 to file
an amended petition. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3 (permissive appeals in civil cases). On August
25, the Clerk of this Court notified Manning that his amended petition for permissive appeal is
overdue. The notice warned that, unless Manning filed an amended petition on or before
September 5, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. On August 28, Manning
filed an amended petition for permissive appeal, which still fails to comply with Rule 28.3.
        Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 28.3, the petition for
permissive appeal is denied and the appeal is dismissed. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own

        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.).
        2
          In recent years, Manning filed several appeals that have resulted in dismissal. See Manning v. Viacom
CBS, Inc., No. 12-23-00113-CV, 2023 WL 4308652 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.

                                                         1
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); see also Phillips v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins. Div. of Workers’ Comp., No. 05-22-00610-CV,
2022 WL 2582565, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 8, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (denying and
dismissing permissive appeal for failure to comply with Rule 28.3). All pending motions are
overruled as moot.
Opinion September 13, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

op.); see also Interest of A.S.M., No. 12-22-00257-CV, 2022 WL 16558446 (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 31, 2022, no
pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Manning v. Longview Social Security Office, No. 12-21-00241-CV, 2022 WL
243195 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 26, 2022, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Interest of A.S.M., No. 12-21-
00005-CV, 2021 WL 761730 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 26, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

                                                          2
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                       SEPTEMBER 13, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00203-CV

                        AUTHOR JAMES MANNING JR.,
                                  Appellant
                                     V.
               THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IN THE INTEREST OF S.M.,
                                  Appellee

                               Appeal from the 307th District Court
                         of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2001-1995)

                   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 petition for permissive appeal be denied
and the appeal dismissed.
                   It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
the petition for permissive appeal be denied and 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.