Christopher Davis v. Valley Mobile Home Park ( 2019 )

NUMBER 13-18-00524-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
VALLEY MOBILE HOME PARK, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
of Nueces County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant Christopher Davis, proceeding pro se, appealed a judgment of eviction
entered by the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas. On September 20,
2018, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his notice of appeal failed to comply
with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(d). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5; id.
R. 25.1(d). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice of appeal with the trial
court within thirty days from the date of that notice.
On November 15, 2018, the Clerk notified appellant that the defects in his notice
of appeal had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be
dismissed if the defects were not cured within ten days. This notice was sent to appellant
by regular and certified mail; however, both items of mail were returned to this Court with
the notations “return to sender,” “moved left no address,” and “unable to forward.”
On December 7, 2018, a clerk of this Court called appellant and left a voicemail
requesting that appellant provide the Court with his new mailing address. Appellant did
not return this call or otherwise provide the Court with his new mailing address. See id.
R. 9.1(b).
Appellant has not provided this Court with a forwarding address, corrected the
defects in his notice of appeal, or taken any other action to prosecute this appeal. An
appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with
a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See
id. R. 42.3(b), (c). The Court, having considered the documents on file, is of the opinion
that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. R. 37.3; id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and because the appellant has failed to
comply with requirements of the appellate rules and notices requesting a response or
other action from this Court.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
31st day of January, 2019.
2