IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00158-CV
APPARAJAN GANESAN,
Appellant
v.
BECKY TIBBS, CODY GINSEL, CYNTHIA
WOODS, JASON MANUEL, JOSE GARCIA,
Appellees
From the 12th District Court
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 23300
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Apparajan Ganesan was in prison when he began pursuing an appeal of an
adverse judgment rendered in a civil suit he filed against various prison personnel. We
have had difficulty in shepherding this appeal to a timely disposition. We abated this
appeal while Ganesan was being process for release from prison. It was reinstated on
January 13, 2009.
Pursuant to the abatement order, Ganesan was ordered to provide to this Court
by February 2, 2009 and serve on all parties to this proceeding notice of his address for
receiving notices and service of documents related to this proceeding. Ganesan was
also ordered to inform the Court by February 2, 2009 what motions on file needed to be
resolved and what other issues needed to be addressed prior to the start of the briefing
schedule. Ganesan did not comply with the order.
Instead, Ganesan filed a “Request to extend time limits.” His request was
denied. Further, we ordered Ganesan to do two things. First we ordered him to “[o]n
or before April 21, 2009, … provide to this Court and serve on all parties to this
proceeding notice of his address for receiving notices and service of documents related
to this proceeding. If appellant fails to provide the address as ordered herein, this
proceeding may be dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).”
(Emphasis added). Second, we ordered Ganesan to “[o]n or before April 21, 2009, …
inform the Court what motions on file need to be resolved and what other issues need
to be addressed prior to the start of the briefing schedule. If appellant does not inform
the Court as to what motions or issues need to be resolved or addressed, appellant’s
brief will be due May 5, 2009.” Ganesan has not fully complied with either of these
directives.
Instead, Ganesan presented a Motion to Correct the Court Records. In the
motion, he complains about missing exhibits, a 2-3 hour break that was not recorded by
the court reporter, and the “completely random” manner in which the clerk’s record is
assembled. He provides no notice of his address for receiving notices and service of
documents related to this proceeding. An address is included in the signature block,
but Ganesan does not state that this is the address for receiving notices and service of
Ganesan v. Tibbs Page 2
documents. Additionally, Ganesan does not inform the Court what motions currently
on file need to be resolved.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed May 6, 2009
[CV06]
Ganesan v. Tibbs Page 3