Richard Gibson and All Other Occupants v. Shawn C. Brown ( 2022 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-21-00569-CV
Richard GIBSON and All Other Occupants,
Appellant
v.
Shawn C. BROWN,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021CV04375
Honorable J. Frank Davis, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice
Beth Watkins, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 27, 2022
APPEAL DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On February 9, 2022, this court notified appellant, who is pro se, that his brief was due on
or before March 11, 2022. On February 17, 2022, appellee filed a motion to dismiss asserting this
court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from a county court at law judgment in a forcible entry
and detainer in which the subject property is nonresidential, commercial property. Because
appellant had not yet filed his brief, the actual nature of his complaints on appeal was unknown.
Appellant did not file his brief or a motion for extension of time. Therefore, on March 23,
2022, this court ordered appellant to file, no later than April 4, 2022, his brief and a written
04-21-00569-CV
response reasonably explaining: (1) his failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not
significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Our order cautioned appellant that
if he failed to timely file a brief and the written response by April 4, 2022, we would dismiss the
appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c)
(allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to comply with court order).
On April 4, 2022, appellant filed a document entitled “Explanations” in which he listed
medical reasons; lack of “adequate, meaningful and available resources”; the lack of funds for
transportation to any resources; and the “lack of reliable, dependable, consistent and available
telephone and internet service” as his reasons for failing to timely file his brief. Appellant
contended appellee has not been significantly injured by his failure to timely file his brief because
appellee “has not suffered any true loss” and appellee, “in concert with others has filed or has
caused to be filed, a fraudulent General Warranty Deed for the property he has no rightful claim
to.” Appellant did not file his brief or state when he would file the brief.
Although we are sympathetic to appellant’s alleged circumstances, pro se litigants “must
comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure.” Scoville v. Shaffer, 9 S.W.3d 201, 204 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Because appellant has not filed his brief, we dismiss this
appeal for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
-2-