COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00243-CV
Habib Surani § From the 153rd District Court
§ of Tarrant County (153-256860-11)
v.
§ January 24, 2013
Trinity River Vision Authority § Per Curiam
JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for
want of prosecution.
It is further ordered that appellant Habib Surani shall pay all of the costs of
this appeal, for which let execution issue.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00243-CV
HABIB SURANI APPELLANT
V.
TRINITY RIVER VISION APPELLEE
AUTHORITY
----------
FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Pro se appellant Habib Surani appeals from the trial court’s order granting
the plea to the jurisdiction filed by appellee Trinity River Vision Authority. We
originally set the due date for appellant’s brief at October 17, 2012. Appellant did
not file a brief by that date, so on October 29, 2012, we notified him that we could
dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution unless, by November 8, 2012, he filed
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
a motion reasonably explaining the failure to file a brief and the need for an
extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). On November 6, 2012, we received
a document that we construed as appellant’s brief, but three days later, we sent
appellant a letter explaining that the document did not comply with any briefing
requirement under rule of appellate procedure 38.1.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1.
We informed appellant that if he did not file an amended brief that complied with
rule 38.1 by November 19, 2012, we could dismiss his appeal.
On November 15, 2012, we received a letter from appellant, but we have
not received an amended brief. Accordingly, we strike appellant’s brief and
dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c);
Johnson v. Dall. Hous. Auth., 179 S.W.3d 770, 770 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no
pet.); see also Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 02-07-00313-CV,
2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied)
(mem. op.) (explaining that all parties appearing in Texas appellate courts must
follow the rules of appellate procedure).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: January 24, 2013
2
For example, the brief contained no legal authorities, no issues, no legal
arguments, and no appendix. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c), (f), (i), (k).
3