Lakim Mintrell Guild v. State

NUMBER 13-12-00742-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ DAMIAN ESCALANTE TDCJ-ID # 1661541, Appellant, v. UTMB, Appellee. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, an inmate, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit as frivolous pursuant to chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant’s brief in the above cause was marked “received” by this Court on March 4, 2013. By letter issued on April 10, 2013, the Clerk of the Court informed appellant that his brief failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. We directed appellant to forward the amended brief to this Court within ten days from the date of this letter. We received appellant’s amended brief on April 29, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (c), (d), (f), (g) and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief does not contain an index of authorities arranged alphabetically and indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited as required by Rule 38.1(c); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by Rule 38.1(d); does not state concisely all issues or points presented for review as required by rule 38.1(f); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by Rule 38.1(g); and does not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. 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 May 21, 2013, appellant filed “Escalante’s Requested Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” with the Court. The document 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. 2 Specifically, the document 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. 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). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 13th day of June, 2013. 3