NUMBER 13-14-00051-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
BLANCA EMID PETTY, Appellant,
v.
JOHN KENT PETTY, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 329th District Court
of Wharton County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Per Curiam
This is a pro se appeal by appellant Blanca Emid Petty from the divorce decree
entered by the trial court dissolving her marriage to appellee John Kent Petty. A review
of this appeal shows that the Court first received a brief from appellant on June 19, 2014.
This brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 38.1. By letter
dated June 20, 2014, the Court notified appellant of these deficiencies. The letter
instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within thirty days
and warned her that if she failed to do so, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant
from filing another, proceed as if appellant failed to file a brief, and dismiss the appeal.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
On July 21, 2014, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file her amended
brief, which this Court granted. The Court then received appellant's first amended brief
on August 25, 2014. The amended brief did not comply with rule 38.1, and by letter
issued on August 26, 2014, the Court informed appellant of the deficiencies and instructed
appellant to file an amended brief correcting the deficiencies within thirty days. The letter
again warned appellant that her failure to comply could result in the Court striking her
brief and dismissing the appeal.
On October 9, 2014, appellant timely filed her second amended brief. But having
reviewed this latest brief, we are of the opinion that appellant has again failed to comply
with the requirements of rule 38.1; the brief presents no cognizable or discernable issues,
and to the extent she does state any issues, she provides no coherent argument
supported by appropriate citations to legal authority. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f), (i).
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must
comply with all applicable rules of procedure. See Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839,
841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) ("A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as
licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure."); see
also Siddiqui v. Siddiqui, No. 14–07–00235–CV, 2009 WL 508260, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 3, 2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("While we have compassion
2
for the plight of the pro se litigant attempting to follow the rules of legal procedure and
substantive laws, and therefore construe pro se pleadings and briefs liberally, we must
still hold appellant to the same standard as a licensed attorney, requiring that he follow
those same rules and laws . . . . To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair
advantage over a litigant represented by counsel."). Appellant has failed to do so in this
case. As neutral and unbiased adjudicators of the disputes before us, we may not
construct arguments for the parties or conduct research supporting those arguments; if
we did, we would be acting as advocates for the parties. See Plummer v. Reeves, 93
S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, pet. denied). And to proceed in this case,
that is exactly the role the Court would be forced to play. We are prohibited from acting
as such. See id.
Our having twice given appellant opportunities to comply with the briefing rules
and extended periods of time to do so, our having warned her at least twice about the
consequence of the failure to comply, and her having thrice tendered to this Court briefs
that wholly fail to comply with the rules, we STRIKE as deficient appellant's October 9,
2014 brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). Because appellant has failed to comply with
the rules, we DISMISS the appeal.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 30th
day of October, 2014.
1 Appellant's other pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3