Frank Johnson, Jr. v. Drew Dykes ( 2022 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-22-00022-CV
___________________________
FRANK JOHNSON, JR., Appellant
V.
DREW DYKES, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2021 -006675-1
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After receiving pro se Appellant’s brief on June 17, 2022, we notified Appellant
that his brief did not comply with Texas Appellate Rules of Procedure 38.1(a), (b), (c),
(d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k); 9.4(i); and local rule 1.A. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(1),
38.1(a)–(d) and (f)–(k); 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1.A. We also informed
Appellant that his failure to file a compliant amended brief by July 18, 2022, could
result in the waiver of noncompliant points, the striking of his brief, and the dismissal
of his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.
On August 11, 2022, having received no amended brief, we notified Appellant
that his appeal might be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he or any party
desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court, on or before August 22, 2022, the
requested amended brief along with a motion reasonably explaining the failure to
timely file the brief and the need for an extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). On
August 22, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his amended
brief, but this motion was also noncompliant because it failed to include a certificate
of conference and a certificate of service. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, 10.1(a)(5). We
notified Appellant of this noncompliance and warned him that, unless he filed the
requisite certificates by September 6, 2022, his motion might be denied or returned
unfiled. Appellant never filed the requisite certificates or an amended brief.
“We liberally construe pro se briefs, but to ensure fairness in our treatment of
all litigants, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and
2
require pro se litigants to follow the applicable laws and rules of procedure.” Branch v.
Fannie Mae, No. 02-11-00355-CV, 2012 WL 3030525, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
July 26, 2012, no pet.); see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex.
1978). Because Appellant has not followed the applicable laws and rules of
procedure, we strike Appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.
/s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker
Justice
Delivered: October 13, 2022
3