Court Opinion

ID: 6338680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-09 07:17:49.368298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:08.175236
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-21-00267-CV

                              COURT OF APPEALS

                    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                       CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

SONIA BEARD WHITAKER,                                                            Appellant,

                                               v.

HAZEL GUILLEN,                                      Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

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

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
 Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

       This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On August 24, 2021, appellant

attempted to file a premature brief which failed to comply with Rules 9.4 (c, d, h), 9.4(i)(3),

9.9, and 38.1(b, c, d, g, and i), as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. On

January 25, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant of the formal and substantive

defects in her brief and requested an amended brief within thirty days from the date of the
notice. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3, on March 2, 2022, the Clerk of Court sent notice

to appellant of the brief’s non-compliance and provided an additional notice that if after

ten days the defects were not cured, the appeal shall be dismissed.

       If a party files a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, 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. Additionally, an appellate

court may dismiss a cause on any party’s motion for want of prosecution or for failing to

comply with the rule or notice from the clerk requiring a response or action. Tex. R. App.

P. 42.3(b), (c). Furthermore, 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).

       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).

                                                                        JAIME TIJERINA
                                                                        Justice

Delivered and filed on the
5th day of May, 2022.

                                              2