NUMBER 13-07-00574-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
______________________________________________________________
JOEL SAENZ, Appellant,
v.
CITY OF KINGSVILLE, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas.
______________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
On March 24, 2008, pro se appellant filed a brief which was marked "received" because it did not comply with Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. The appellant's amended brief was due on June 2, 2008. On November 21, 2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that an amended brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this letter, appellant filed an amended brief in compliance with Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. Appellant subsequently filed an amended brief on December 1, 2008. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, 38.1.
On February 2, 2009, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the amended brief did not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(d); did not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record; and did not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(j). Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c).
On February 12, 2009, the appellant filed a letter which states he is not an attorney, cannot find an attorney, does not know the law, and feels threatened by the wording of the letter sent to him on February 2, 2009. The appellant did not file an amended brief following the Clerk's letter of February 2, 2009. The amended brief filed on December 1, 2008, fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See i.d. 9.4, 38.1. Specifically, appellant's amended brief does not contain facts pertinent to the issues or points presented, does not contain citations to the record and to appropriate legal authorities, and does not contain an appendix.
A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 12th day of March, 2009.