Cora Canady v. City of Dallas and City Manager T.C. Broadnax

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 26, 2022
S In the
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00250-CV
CORA CANADY, Appellant
V.
CITY OF DALLAS AND CITY MANAGER T.C. BROADNAX, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-04652-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein
Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Appellant Cora Canady claims the trial court erred in granting the city’s plea
to the jurisdiction. We affirm.
Appellant, proceeding pro se here and in the trial court, sued the city for
shutting off her water during the COVID-19 pandemic. On appeal, appellant first
claims there was insufficient evidence to support granting the plea. As part of this
claim, she also complains the trial court cut short her testimony as part of her
response to the plea. Appellant also states in her brief that her “voice had been stifled
in every court [she’d] been to,” that she is disabled and on medicine, and that she
asks for $10,000 in compensation from the city for jeopardizing her family and their
well-being during the pandemic. She states that the water is back on but is not in her
name and requests the water bill be put in her name.
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. See 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.). This includes following 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 briefs’ contents. 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.
In doing so, we liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs. Washington,
362 S.W.3d at 854. But appellant’s brief includes no record references, nor is there
an adequate statement of facts or statement of the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g)
(appellant’s brief must include a statement of facts “supported by record
references”), (i) (appellant’s brief “must contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”). There
is no citation to legal authority, nor does the brief attempt to meaningfully explain
–2–
why the trial court’s denial of the city’s plea was legal error. See id. 38.1(i); see also
Copeland v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 05-21-00120-CV, 2022 WL 2235983, at
*2–3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 22, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Appellant’s brief has remained deficient despite this court’s July 22, 2021
letter describing the brief’s deficiencies rule by rule—including those cited above—
and providing a timetable for remedying them. We granted appellant’s two motions
for extension of time to file a rule-compliant brief and yet, to date, we still do not
have a rule-compliant brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.91, 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.”).
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
Hammonds, 2021 WL 5410519, at *2. Because appellant did not amend the brief to
1
The text of appellate rule 38.9 is as follows:
Because briefs are meant to acquaint the court with the issues in a case and to present
argument that will enable the court to decide the case, substantial compliance with this rule
is sufficient, subject to the following:
(a) Formal defects. If the court determines that this rule has been flagrantly violated, it
may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrwawn. If another brief that
does not comply with this rule is filed, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the
party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.
(b) Substantive Defects. If the court determines, either before or after submission, that
the case has not been properly presented in the briefs, or that the law and authorities
have not been properly cited in the briefs, the court may postpone submission, require
additional briefing, and make any other order necessary for a satisfactory submission
of the case.
–3–
correct the deficiencies and provide adequate substantive briefing on any complaint,
we conclude appellant’s brief presents nothing for our review. See Melton v.
LegacyTexas Bank, No. 05-11-01048-CV, 2012 WL 1378490, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Apr. 18, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).
In the interest of justice, we address what we can discern is appellant’s
complaint: she had a contract with the city to provide water to her home, the city
breached by shutting it off, and thus, the trial court should have denied the plea to
the jurisdiction. The city’s plea challenged appellants’ pleadings’ sufficiency, before
and after the trial court granted the city’s special exceptions and appellant failed to
amend the petition to allege the five elements required to overcome governmental
immunity. See City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134–35 (Tex. 2011);
TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 271.151–.152. Because appellant’s petition contains
insufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate jurisdiction even after having been
given a reasonable opportunity to amend, the trial court properly dismissed the
action with prejudice. See Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Cory L. Carlyle/
CORY L. CARLYLE
210250f.p05 JUSTICE
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CORA CANADY, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at
Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-21-00250-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-04652-
E.
CITY OF DALLAS AND CITY Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
MANAGER T.C. BROADNAX, Justices Myers and Goldstein
Appellees participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 26th day of July, 2022.
–5–