Summary
dismissing for nonpayment of required fees and want of prosecution
Summary of this case from Clinkscale v. ScottOpinion
NO. 01-15-00938-CV
03-22-2016
CECILIA CLINKSCALE, Appellant v. CORPORATE AUTO SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Appellees
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1059855
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Cecilia Clinkscale, proceeding pro se, appealed from the trial court's order denying her verified motion to reinstate case on docket, signed on September 23, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a)(1). However, appellant has neither paid the required filing fee nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See id. at 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041(1) (West Supp. 2015), § 101.0411 (West Supp. 2015); Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). Further, appellant has neither paid nor made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk's record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified by the Clerk of this Court on November 19, 2015, and November 25, 2015, and again by this Court's Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution on February 2, 2016, that this appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay the required fees, appellant did not timely respond with payment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(c).
Instead, appellant filed in this Court, on March 4, 2016, a "Motion to Rescind Dismissal Order and to Object to Order Sustaining Contest to Pauper's Oath." Appellant claimed, among other things, that she did not receive sufficient notice of the trial court clerk's contest to her affidavit of indigence or the trial court's order sustaining the contest until January 8, 2016. However, if a trial court sustains a contest to an affidavit of indigence for appellate costs, as the trial court did here on January 5, 2016, the party claiming indigence may seek review of the trial court's order by filing in the appellate court a motion challenging the order, within ten days after the order sustaining the contest is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(1), (2). Thus, even construing appellant's March 4, 2016 motion as one seeking review of the trial court's January 5, 2016 order, the motion is untimely. See id. 20.1(j)(2).
This Court may extend the time for filing a motion challenging an order sustaining a contest, but only after an extension motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) is filed, which appellant failed to file here. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(2). --------
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.