Robert C. Morris v. Sherri Milligan

July 6, 2015 __- Twelfth Court of Appeals TnXDuTcOURTOFJAPPEALS 1517 W. Front. St., Ste 354 Tyler, Texas 75702 12thCoyrtolA^Ei2li^ict JUL 13 2015 RE: No. 12-14-00332-CV Robert C. Morris vs. Sherri Milligan Et Al. TYLER TEXAS CATHY S.LUSK.CLI Dear Court Clerk, Please find enclosed my Appellant's Opposition To Appellee's Motion For Extension Of Time to be filed and presented to the Court for consideration and ruling, in the above styled numbered cause. Please note on this date, a true and correct copy has been served upon the opposing counsels in this matter. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter, it is greatly appreciated and welcomed. Sincerely, Robert C. Morris Appellant Pro Se TDCJ-ID # 1311083 Smith Unit 1313 CR 19 Lamesa, TX 79331 enclosure(s): l(3pgs) cc: file Veronica Chidester, Asst. AG Patrick Brezik, Asst. AG IN THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS ROBERT C. MORRIS § NO. 12-14-00332-CV vs. § T/C NO. 349- FILED IN Cw SHERRI MILLIGAN, ET AL. § 12thQourt£ APPELLANT'S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE'S r MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, Robert C. Morris, Appellant Pro Se, in the abrw^_s^yTed~number€ cause, and respectfully files and submits this his Opposition To Appellee's Motion For Extension Of Time. Morris shows the following in his opposition. I. The Court filed Morris's appellate brief on April 20, 2015, however the Appellee's counsel received his copy several days prior, as the Certificate of Service and Motion For Leave indicates, as an issue with the postmark delayed the Court's official filing. Thus, the Appellee had over 30 days to prepare and file it's brief. It did not by the May 20, 2015 deadline. On June 18, 2015, Morris inquired with the Court regarding the Appellee's brief or Motion For Extension of Time having been filed. The Court responded on June 24, 2015 with a letter stating that the Appellee's had not filed anything, which was e-mailed to Appellee's counsel. On June 29, 2015, the Appellee's filed a Motion For Extension of Time, which Morris received notification from the Court in a letter dated the same date, received on June 2, 2015. However, Morris has not been served a copy of Appellee's motion as of this date of filing this opposition. II. The Court should deny Appellee's Motion For Extension of Time due to the late filing date. The Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly states time for filing for an extension of time, which must be within 10 days of the filing deadline. T.R.A.P.£§.6 The Appellee's motion is way beyond that deadline, as it was filed 39 days after filing deadline for brief and only after notice from the Court 34 days later past deadline. The Court should strike the Appellee's Motion for failure to serve a copy on opposing party, as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. T.R.A.P. 9*f This is the second incident the Attorney General's Office has failed to serve Morris a copy of a pleading filed. The other was in the U.S. Court of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit case. Finally, the Court should deny Appellee's Motion for unreasonable reason for delay, due to the lack of diligence by said counsel(s) for Appellees. Morris noticed a different counsel from previous letters from the Court and proceedings at the District Court level. If counsel of record has changed, once again, no notice has been provided. This reason for delay - change of counsel - is the second time in this case that the Appellees relied upon change of counsel for failure to timely file a pleading. Appellant Morris is proceeding Pro Se, who while not held to the same standards, must still meet every deadline set by the rules. If Morris misses a deadline by some 30 days with no request for extension of time timely filed, he would be denied and waive any claims, arguments or response. The Appellee's would be the first to request such a ruling from the Court against Morris. The Attorney General is held to the higher standard due to the professionalism and education. There cannot be any legitimate reason for not complying with filing deadlines. The Attorney General sure be considered deficient in his performance for such action. Therefore, Morris contends the Appellee's have failed to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure and based upon decisions by the various courts have waived the right to file appellate brief in this matter. Thus the Court should deny Motion For Extension of Time for failure to timely file such request and strike any Appellee arguments or counter-claims on the issues raised by Morris. The Court should further strike the Motion for failure to serve Morris a copy. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant Robert C. Morris, prays this Honorable Court denies the Appellee's Motion For Extension of Time for the reasons put forth herein and Orders the waiver of any claims or arguments. Respectfully Submitted, DATED: July 6, 2015 Robert C. Morris Appellant Pro Se TDCJ-ID # 1311083 Smith Unit 1313 CR 19 Lamesa, Texas 79331 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert C. Morris, declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct, and further certify that a true and correct copy has been served upon Veronica Chidester, Asst Attorney General, PO Box 1748, Austin, Texas 78767 and Patrick Brezik, Asst. Attorney General, PO Box 12548, Austin, Texas 78711-2548 by placing in the Smith Unit/TDCJ-ID Prison Mail System on this the 6th Day of July, 2015. C. Morris Applicant Pro Se TDCJ-ID # 1311083 Smith Unit Dawson County, Texas