Rita Lemons v. Betty J. Garmond, Mamie Bright, Justin Thomas, Jaqueline R. Woodard ( 2016 )

Opinion issued September 8, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00570-CV
———————————
RITA LEMONS, Appellant
V.
BETTY J. GARMOND, MAMIE BRIGHT, JUSTIN THOMAS, AND
JACQUELINE R. WOODARD, Appellees
On Appeal from the 240th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 14-DCV-213789
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Proceeding pro se, appellant, Rita Lemons, timely filed a notice of appeal
from the trial court’s final “Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Baseless
Causes of Action and Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment.” We dismiss
the appeal.
Appellant submitted a brief to this Court before the appellate record was
complete. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1 (appellate record consists of clerk’s record and,
if necessary to appeal, reporter’s record), 38.6(a) (appellant must file brief within
thirty days after later of date clerk’s record or reporter’s record was filed). We
notified appellant that her brief had been received and did not comply with the
requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1
(setting out requisites for appellant’s brief). The “appellate rules have specific
requirements for briefing that require, among other things, that an appellant provide
a statement of facts, which includes references to the record, and an argument that
is clear and concise with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.” Holz
v. U. S. of Am. Corp., No. 05-13-01241-CV, 2014 WL 6555024, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Oct. 23, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.). And although we construe an appellate
brief liberally, a party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable procedural
rules. Green v. Midland Mortg. Co., 342 S.W.3d 686, 692 n.7 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (citing Harris v. Showcase Chevrolet, 231 S.W.3d 559,
561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.)). Accordingly, we ordered appellant to file
an amended brief in compliance with the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure, including rule 38.1.
Appellant filed an amended brief. However, on July 7, 2016, the Clerk of this
Court notified her that the amended brief did not comply with the requirements of
2
rule 38.1 and the Court might dismiss her appeal unless she filed an amended brief
in compliance with the rule by July 28, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1, 38.9(a),
42.3(b); Hargest-Davis v. Crescent M & P, LLC, No. 01-15-00328-CV, 2016 WL
1714522, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.);
see also Briggs v. Washington Fed., No. 05-15-00834-CV, 2016 WL 3398394, at *2
(Tex. App.—Dallas June 20, 2016, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal when
appellant’s initial brief did not comply with rules of appellate procedure and he failed
to file amended brief in compliance with rules). Appellant has failed to file an
amended brief or otherwise respond.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.
3