in the Interest of A.A., a Child ( 2023 )

Affirm and Opinion Filed January 5, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00331-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 416-51855-2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Kennedy
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Pro se appellant Ali Azhar appeals the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce,
which was entered following a bench trial. Texas law recognizes the right for civil
litigants to proceed on their own behalf in court, pro se. Bolling v. Farmers Branch
ISD, 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). That said, we hold
pro se litigants to the same standards for pleading, briefing, and procedure as we do
lawyers. Canady v. City of Dallas, No. 05-21-00250-CV, 2022 WL 2951668, at *1
(Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Mansfield State Bank
v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Washington v. Bank of N.Y., 362
S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). Pro se appellants must follow
the appellate rules for briefing appeals to this court, and though we do not require
rigid adherence regarding the form of a brief, we examine briefs closely for
compliance with rules governing the content of appellate briefs. Id. (citing
Hammonds v. Dallas Cty., No. 05-18-01433-CV, 2020 WL 948383, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Feb. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.)). To do otherwise would give pro
se litigants an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Id.In this case, appellant’s brief fails to comply with numerous requirements of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. For example, the brief does not provide
any citations to authorities or to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), (d), (g), (i).
After receiving appellant’s brief, this Court notified appellant by letter that his
brief was deficient; the letter described the brief’s deficiencies rule by rule—
including those cited above—and provided a timetable for remedying them.
Appellant then filed a motion for extension of time to file a rule-compliant brief,
which we granted. Yet, to date, we still do not have a rule-compliant brief. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 38.9, 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or
dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without
allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.”); see
also Canady, 2022 WL 2951668, at *2.
The deficiencies in appellant’s briefing are not negligible matters of form but
instead run afoul of “rules that govern the content of appellate briefs.” See Canady,
2022 WL 2951668, at *2 (citing Hammonds, 2021 WL 5410519, at *2). Because
–2–
appellant did not amend his brief to correct the deficiencies and provide adequate
substantive briefing on any complaint, we conclude appellant’s brief presents
nothing for our review. Canady, 2022 WL 2951668, at *2 (citing Melton v.
LegacyTexas Bank, No. 05-11-01048-CV, 2012 WL 1378490, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Apr. 18, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)).
We affirm the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce.
/Erin A. Nowell//
210331f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A On Appeal from the 416th Judicial
CHILD District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 416-51855-
No. 05-21-00331-CV 2020.
Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
Justices Partida-Kipness and
Kennedy participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Final
Decree of Divorce is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee Hajra Hussain recover her costs of this appeal
from appellant Ali Azhar.
Judgment entered this 5th day of January 2023.
–4–