Preston Briggs v. Robert Rebuck ( 1995 )


Menu:
  • Briggs v. Rebuck






    IN THE

    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS


    No. 10-95-059-CV


         PRESTON BRIGGS,

                                                                                                  Appellant

         v.


         ROBERT REBUCK, ET AL.,

                                                                                                  Appellees


    From the 87th District Court

    Freestone County, Texas

    Trial Court # 95-031-B

                                                                                                        


    MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                        


          Preston Briggs appealed from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis petition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Briggs filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 1995, and the transcript was filed in this court on March 17. Although his brief was due on April 17, no appellant's brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

    Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

    Id. 74(l)(1).

          More than thirty days have passed since Briggs' brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter on May 19. See id. 60(a)(2), 83. He responded to our letter, claiming that the court dismissed his petition because he used the unsworn declarations form provided by the legislature for use by inmates. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.003 (Vernon Supp. 1995). However, this claim does not show grounds for continuing the appeal, nor is it a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief.

          Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

                                                                                   PER CURIAM


    Before Chief Justice Thomas,

          Justice Cummings, and

          Justice Vance

    Dismissed for want of prosecution

    Opinion delivered and filed June 7, 1995

    Do not publish

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-95-00059-CV

Filed Date: 6/7/1995

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/10/2015