Opinion
02-23-00236-CV
10-19-2023
Deloris Phillips, Appellant v. Sugar Creek Apartments, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-001468-2
Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elizabeth Kerr, Justice
This is Deloris Phillips's third attempted appeal from the trial court's orders denying her various postjudgment motions.
In December 2022, the trial court signed a default judgment in Phillips's favor against Appellee Sugar Creek Apartments. See Phillips v. Sugar Creek Apartments (Phillips I), No. 02-23-00107-CV, 2023 WL 3643674, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth May 25, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). After the trial court's plenary power had expired, Phillips filed a "Motion to Preserve [the] Record." Id. The trial court denied the motion, and Phillips attempted to appeal from that denial. Id. Because that order wasn't appealable, we dismissed Phillips's appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id.
Phillips then filed additional postjudgment motions: (1) a motion to appoint counsel and a special master and (2) a motion to amend the judgment. See Phillips v. Sugar Creek Apartments (Phillips II), No. 02-23-00192-CV, 2023 WL 4501814, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 13, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). The trial court denied those motions, and Phillips again attempted to appeal. Id. As with Phillips's first appeal, we dismissed her second appeal for want of jurisdiction because the two orders she had attempted to appeal were not appealable. See id.
Now, Phillips attempts to appeal from the trial court's July 7, 2023 order denying yet another postjudgment motion-"Plaintiffs Verified Motions for Expedited Hearing on the Record for Appealable Order and Final Judgment for Orders (June 05, 2023) Denying Motions for Appointment of Counsel &Special Master and Denied Motion for Amended Default Judgment with Motion for Appealable Order and Final Judgment Attached Plaintiff['s] Motions for Reconsideration of Orders (06.05.2023) Pursuant [to] 18 U.S.C §1621, 28 U.S.C §1746, 28 U.S.C. §1915." On July 19, 2023, we wrote to Phillips to express our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court's July 7, 2023 order did not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We warned her that we could dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a response by July 31, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3.
At Phillips's request, we have twice extended the deadline for her to respond to our letter. On October 9, 2023-the day Phillips's response was due after she had received two extensions-she filed a third extension request, asking for an additional 60 days to respond. We denied her request, and we have received no response to our letter.
For the same reasons set out in our opinions dismissing Phillips's two earlier appeals, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Phillips II, 2023 WL 4501814, at *1; Phillips 1, 2023 WL 3643674, at *1; see also Tex.R.App.P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).