Rito Salas and Erica Soliz v. Maria Moreno

NUMBER 13-13-00498-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ RITO SALAS AND ERICA SOLIZ, Appellants, v. MARIA MORENO, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from County Court at Law of Bee County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam The appellants’ brief in the above cause was due on October 21, 2013. On November 18, 2013, appellants filed a one page brief. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. On December 12, 2013, and January 16, 2014, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the brief failed generally to comply with Rules 9.4 and 38.1 as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellants were 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 appellants from filing another, and proceed as if appellants 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). Appellants failed to respond to the Court’s notice. 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). If the appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file another brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, we strike appellants’ non-conforming brief and order the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b)(c). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 13th day of March, 2014. 2