Clarence W. Lewis and Evelyn J. Lewis v. City of Conroe

NUMBER 13-15-464-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
CLARENCE W. LEWIS AND
EVELYN J. LEWIS, Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CONROE, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
of Montgomery County, Texas
____________________________________________________________
ORDER
Before Justices Garza, Perkes, and Longoria
Order Per Curiam
This cause is before the Court on appellants’ motion for extension of time to file
third amended brief and appellee’s response.1 Appellants’ brief was originally due on
1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant
to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001
(West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).
February 19, 2016.
Appellants’ second amended brief was received on August 11, 2016. Upon
review of the appellants’ second amended brief, we found the brief contained numerous
formal defects and the case has not been properly presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9.
In particular, (1) the statement of the case is not supported by record references as
required by Rule 38.1(d); (2) the brief does not state the issues presented as required by
Rule 38.1(f); (3) the statement of facts is not supported by record references as required
by Rule 38.1(g); and (4) the brief does not contain an appendix as required by Rule
38.1(k).
Appellants were notified of these defects by letter dated August 22, 2016, and were
directed to file an amended brief in compliance within ten days. Instead of filing an
amended brief, appellants have filed a motion for extension of time to file a third amended
brief, requesting a thirty day extension.
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART appellants’ motion for
extension of time to file a third amended brief. This motion is GRANTED insofar as the
Court will extend appellants’ deadline to file an amended brief with this Court that
complies with the above rules within fifteen days from the date of this order. This motion
is DENIED insofar as the Court will not allow an extension until October 2, 2016. No
further extensions will be granted.
Appellee’s response to appellants’ motion for extension of time to file brief states
that appellants have failed to serve a copy of all documents on appellee. Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.5 (a) provides that “At or before the time of a document’s filing,
2
the filing party must serve a copy on all parties to the proceeding. Service on a party
represented by counsel must be made on that party’s lead counsel.” See id. 9.5 (a).
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must
therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn,
573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).
If appellants file an amended brief that fails to comply with this order of the Court
and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit
appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellants had failed to file a brief. See
id. 38.9(a). Under such circumstances, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution and appellants’ failure to comply with this Court’s directive and the appellate
rules. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
9th day of September, 2016.
3