Tamara Angela Griffin v. James Henry Thomas, Sr. ( 2024 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
TAMARA ANGELA GRIFFIN, § No. 08-24-00003-CV
Appellant, § Appeal from the
v. § 383rd Judicial District Court
JAMES HENRY THOMAS, SR., § of El Paso County, Texas
Appellee. § (TC#2020DCM1006)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By opinion and judgment issued January 30, 2024, this Court dismissed the above styled
and numbered cause for want of jurisdiction because the appeal was not timely perfected. After
our opinion issued, Appellant filed a motion for rehearing which this Court granted by Order dated
May 6, 2024. Having withdrawn our original opinion and returned this cause to the docket, it is
now before the Court on Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal. Finding
that Appellant failed to comply with this Court’s Order, we deny the motion and dismiss the appeal
for want of jurisdiction.
We recognize that Appellant is a pro se litigant. Yet, this Court has previously held that
pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licenced attorneys and are required to comply
with all applicable laws and rules of procedure. Interest of M.D.G., 527 S.W.3d 299, 303
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, no pet); see also Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185
(Tex. 1978) (“Litigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural
rules, or else they would be given an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel.”);
Zavala v. Franco, 622 S.W.3d 612, 617–18 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, pet. denied) (discussing
standards for pro se litigants). Thus, Appellant is not exempt from the rules of procedure by virtue
of her pro se status. Palmer v. Off. of the Att’y Gen., 656 S.W.3d 640, 644 (Tex. App.—El Paso
2022, no pet.).
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 11, 2024, attempting to appeal a final
judgment signed by the trial court on October 12, 2023. This Court reviewed the docketing
certificate which showed that Appellant filed an untimely motion for new trial on
January 11, 2024. Because the motion for new trial was untimely, it appeared to this Court that it
did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal, which without a timely filed motion for new
trial, would have been due by November 11, 2023. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. We concluded that
Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on January 11, 2024 was thus untimely and did not properly
invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.
On January 12, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent Appellant a letter notifying her that the
appeal was not timely perfected. The letter gave notice of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want
of jurisdiction, after ten days, unless grounds were shown to continue the appeal. Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(a). Appellant did not respond to this Court’s notice, and her appeal was dismissed for want
of jurisdiction on January 30, 2024. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 42.5(a),(c), 43.2(f).
That same day, Appellant filed a motion for rehearing asking this Court to reinstate the
appeal on the grounds that the motion for new trial and notice of appeal were timely filed. The
motion included documents from the electronic filing service provider, efiletexas.gov, indicating
that Appellant filed a motion for new trial on November 11, 2023. The motion also asserted that
Appellant attempted to file the motion for new trial on November 10, 2023, but was unable to
complete the filing due to an electronic filing system failure. This Court requested a response from
the Appellee, but none was received.
In considering Appellant’s motion for rehearing, this Court found that Appellant’s motion
for new trial was timely filed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(f)(5), which provides
that a document is deemed filed when transmitted to the party’s electronic filing service provider.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(5). Appellant transmitted her motion to the electronic filing service provider
on November 11, 2023, which was a Saturday. Therefore, Appellant’s motion for new trial was
deemed filed on Monday November 13, 2024, and the timely filed motion extended the post-
judgment deadlines for filing a notice of appeal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 21(f)(5); 4; Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a),
(a)(1). But even with the extended deadlines, which ran from October 12, 2023 to January 10,
2024, Appellant’s notice of appeal filed on January 11, 2024 was nonetheless untimely.
Although the notice of appeal was untimely, this Court noted in our Order on Appellant’s
motion for rehearing that a court of appeals “may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if,
within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal,” the appellant files the notice of
appeal in the trial court and files a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal in the
appellate court. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3(a), (b). Because this Court has previously held that a motion
of extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant files a notice of appeal after the
deadline, but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3, our Order found that Appellant
had provided the preliminary grounds for continuing the appeal as requested in our letter noticing
our intent to dismiss. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). We granted the
motion for rehearing and ordered Appellant to file the appropriate motion for extension of time
providing a reasonable explanation for filing the notice of appeal late. Our Order stated that the
motion and explanation were due no later than May 24, 2024, and warned that the appeal would
be subject to dismissal without further notice if Appellant failed to comply. Tex. R. App. P.
42.3(b), (c).
On May 28, 2024, four days after the deadline provided in our Order, Appellant attempted
to file a motion for extension of time through the electronic filing service provider. The document
was rejected for corrections by the Clerk of this Court and resubmitted by Appellant on May 31,
2024. Because Appellant’s motion for extension of time was not filed by the May 24, 2024
deadline that this Court imposed and clearly communicated to Appellant, we deny her attempted
late filed motion, and decline to extend the time to file her notice of appeal. 1 See Tex. R. App. P.
26.3. And without an extension, her appeal is untimely, and we dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.
JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice
June 13, 2024
Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
1
Even at that, the entire substance of Appellant’s explanation for late filing her notice of appeal reads: “This extension
of time is necessary because there was Technical Failure that delayed e-file completion for several minutes past
deadline. [sic] This extension of time is not sought for the purposes of delay, but so that justice may be done.” Unlike
her Motion for Rehearing that attached documentation from the e-file system supporting when her motion for new
trial was filed, nothing was attached to her late filed Motion For Extension of Time to File the Notice of Appeal that
in any way explains what “Technical Failure” she alludes to.