IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
10-14-00355-CV
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
Appellant
v.
SAM ROUND,
Appellee
10-14-00392-CV
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
Appellant
v.
SEAN D. FLEMING,
Appellee
10-15-00069-CV
WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,
Appellant
v.
KELLIE McDOUGALD,
Appellee
No. 10-15-00092-CV
WILLIAM WINDSOR,
Appellant
v.
JOEYISALITTLEKID, ET AL,
Appellee
From the 378th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 88611
ORDER
There are currently four civil proceedings pending before this Court in which
William Windsor is the appellant. In each proceeding, Windsor has filed a brief which
on its face is grossly deficient from compliance with the rules of appellate procedure.
The most glaring deficiency is that Windsor does not include “appropriate citations to
authorities and to the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1 (i). He makes general references to
the record without specific page numbers, or even volume numbers, thus requiring this
Court to sift through a voluminous clerk’s record for the document Windsor references.
We are not required to sift through the record for support of Windsor’s arguments. See
Hajjar v. State, 176 S.W.3d 554, 566 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).
Windsor v. Round, Fleming, McDougald, and Joeyisalittlekid Page 2
Additionally, some issues are not supported by citations to authorities at all. TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.1(i).
Windsor also includes an appendix with his brief containing a multitude of
documents, many of which, if not all, are included in the clerk’s record and cites to this
appendix as authority rather than to the clerk’s record. Windsor had previously been
informed by order of the Court issued on September 3, 2015 that he could not use his
own documents in lieu of a clerk’s record. The appendix included with Windsor’s brief
evidences a conscious decision to ignore that order. This appendix was voluminous,
unnecessary, and consumed an undue amount of time for this Court to process and file.
Furthermore, there are a number of potentially dispositive issues pending
decision by the Court, including pending motions to dismiss by some of the appellees.
In light of these facts, the Court stays the briefing schedule for the appellees in
each proceeding to potentially avoid the cost and burden of complying with the due
dates for filing an appellee’s brief. The appellees may file their brief in response if they
choose to, but the due date for those briefs is hereby suspended until further order of
the Court. This does not, however, prevent any party from filing any interim response
to the briefs or motions regarding other relief sought, if any.
Finally, the Court is considering whether the briefs filed by Windsor should be
stricken, as his previously improper briefs were, or whether it would be appropriate at
this juncture, based on the history of this litigation, to dismiss the proceedings as a
Windsor v. Round, Fleming, McDougald, and Joeyisalittlekid Page 3
sanction. Windsor is invited to respond to the Court’s notice of its consideration of
further sanctions against him. Upon Windsor’s response, if any, other parties may
reply to Windsor’s response if they so choose.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Briefing schedule stayed
Order issued and filed October 15, 2015
Windsor v. Round, Fleming, McDougald, and Joeyisalittlekid Page 4