NUMBER 13-12-00390-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
JOSE A. GARCIA, Appellant,
v.
CARLOS ABREGO, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 404th District Court
of Cameron County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on October 14, 2012. On
October 12, 2012, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
On October 12, 2012, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to
comply with 38.1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. An amended brief was received on November 5,
2012, and a second amended brief was received on November 28, 2012. The first and
second amended briefs do not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and
appellant was directed to file a brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
On December 17, 2012, the Court received a third amended brief. The brief fails
generally to comply with Rules 9.5(e) and 38.1 (h) and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See id. 9.5 (e), 38.1. A certificate of service is required. See id. 9.5 (e).
The third amended brief does not contain the summary of the argument as required by
Rule 38.1(h); and does not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See id.
On December 19, 2013, 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).
Appellant did not respond and the appeal was abated by this Court on January 15,
2013, due to the bankruptcy of one of the parties to this appeal. See 11 U.S.C. §362;
see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 8. On July 10, 2013, the appeal was reinstated and
appellant was again notified that the brief fails generally to comply with Rules 9.5(e) and
38.1 (h) and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 9.5 (e), 38.1. A
2
certificate of service is required. See id. 9.5 (e). The third amended brief does not
contain the summary of the argument as required by Rule 38.1(h); and does not contain
an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See id.
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 July 15, 2013, appellant filed a letter with the Court. The letter
cannot be considered as an appellate brief because it fails to comply with Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38.1 concerning the substantive requirements for an appellant’s
brief. Specifically, the letter fails to include any indicia of an appellate brief as described
by the rules.
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.
3
Accordingly, we strike appellant’s 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). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
8th day of August, 2013.
4