Opinion issued September 28, 2006
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-05-00431-CV
CLAUDE HUGH LLOYD AND CASSANDRA JEAN LLOYD, Appellants
V.
CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY EDUCATION DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY, HARRIS COUNTY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, PORT OF HOUSTON OF HARRIS COUNTY AUTHORITY, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, HARRIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT #80, HARRIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT #5, HARRIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT #14, NEWPORT MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellees
On Appeal from the 164th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2003–00039
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAppellants Claude Hugh Lloyd and Cassandra Jean Lloyd filed their original brief on April 19, 2006. In an order dated July 20, 2006, appellants’ original brief was struck for noncompliance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(d), 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h). Appellants were ordered to file an amended brief correcting these briefing deficiencies by August 4, 2006. The order informed appellants that failure to cure the briefing deficiencies and comply with the order would result in the dismissal of their appeal without further notice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
On August 4, 2006, appellants filed a motion for extension of time to file their amended brief and “An Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs.” In an order dated September 5, 2006, appellants’ motion for extension of time to file their amended brief was denied, but appellants were given until September 15, 2006 to file their amended brief correcting the briefing deficiencies cited in the July 20, 2006 order. The September 5, 2006 order also denied appellant’s request for indigency status and cautioned that “failure to comply with this order within the time stated herein will result in this appeal being dismissed without further notice.” On September 14, 2006, appellants filed a another motion for extension of time to file their amended brief and filed a motion to reconsider the September 5, 2006 order.
Appellants have been given two separate opportunities to cure the briefing defects and two separate notices that failure to cure the briefing defects would result in dismissal. Because appellants have not complied by filing an amended brief, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3. All pending motions are denied.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Higley.