Court Opinion

ID: 9959989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-13 16:12:18.298965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:03.252965
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00536-CV

                    COURT OF APPEALS

            THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

             CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

JOSE RAMIRO MEZA,                                         Appellant,

                                   v.

DIANE C. HOLLAND, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS STATUTORY BENEFICIARIES
OF THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL WAYNE
HOLLAND, DECEASED AND AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF SAMUEL WAYNE
HOLLAND, DECEASED,                                        Appellees.

        ON APPEAL FROM THE 347TH DISTRICT COURT
               OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
         Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva
            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
       On December 5, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On December 7, 2024,

the Clerk of the Court noticed appellant that the notice of appeal did not comply with

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(2) and (4), and 25.1(e). TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5, 25.1(d)(2) and (4), and 25.1(e). That same day, appellant filed an amended

notice of appeal. On January 29, 2024, again, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant the

amended notice of appeal did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

See Id. Finally, on February 22, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant again of

the defects and that if the defects were not corrected within ten days, the appeal would

be dismissed. Id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

       On February 28, 2024, the clerk’s January 29, 2024 notice was returned to sender

and marked “unclaimed,” and “unable to forward.” Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign any document filed and “give the party’s

mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and email address.” See id. R.

9.1(b). Nonetheless, appellant filed a response on February 28, 2024. The response

asserts the cited rules related to the defects in the notice of appeal did not apply to his

appeal. Additionally, appellant’s response does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.1 and 9.5. Id. R. 9.1, 9.5.

       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). Furthermore, Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice

to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a

                                              2
requirement of the appellate rules. See id. 42.3(b), (c). We now dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See id.

      Accordingly, appellee’s motion to compel compliance with Rule 9.5 and appellant’s

    motion for jury trial, previously carried, are now both denied as moot. See id. R. 9.5.

                                                              CLARISSA SILVA
                                                              Justice

Delivered and filed on the
11th day of April, 2024.

                                            3