Opinion
02-22-00209-CV
02-16-2023
Rosalinda A. Barajas, Appellant v. DSORCE LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022-001460-1
Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Per Curiam
In the underlying forcible-detainer case, the trial court granted Appellee DSORCE LLC possession of the property occupied by Appellant Rosalinda A. Barajas and others. Only Barajas, appearing pro se, appealed the judgment.
Barajas's brief was due on September 29, 2022. On that date, Barajas filed twenty-one pages of documents that appear to have been previously filed in the justice court. We deemed these documents to be her brief and sent a letter listing all the deficiencies that Barajas needed to correct to make her brief compliant and requesting a corrected brief be filed by October 10, 2022. The letter stated that the failure to file a compliant brief could result in striking the brief that had been filed and in dismissal of the appeal.
In response, Barajas filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file her brief. After Barajas paid the motion fee and provided a certificate of service, the motion was granted, and Barajas's briefing deadline was extended to November 10, 2022.
On November 29, 2022, because we had still not received a corrected brief from Barajas, we sent her a second notice requesting that she file a corrected brief by December 9, 2022, and stating again that the failure to file a compliant brief could result in striking the brief that had been filed and in dismissal of the appeal.
In response, Barajas filed eighteen pages of documents instead of a corrected appellate brief. Because it was unclear whether Barajas had received both pages of our second notice requesting a corrected brief, we re-sent the second notice and gave her until December 22, 2022, to file a corrected brief. We have not received a corrected brief.
A pro se litigant is held to the same standard as a licensed attorney. Thus, while an appellant has the right to represent herself on appeal, that right comes with the obligation to follow the applicable rules of procedure, including the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Yeldell v. Denton Cent. Appraisal Dist., No. 2-07-313-CV, 2008 WL 4053014, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Aug. 29, 2008, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Barajas was therefore required to file a brief that complied with the mandatory appellate briefing rules. See Smith v. Nat'l Protective Servs., No. 02-21-00442-CV, 2023 WL 308171, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Jan. 19, 2023, no pet. h.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (citing Porter v. Kennard Law PC, No. 01-22-00153-CV, 2022 WL 11413164, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 20, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.)).
Because Barajas failed to do so, we strike her brief and dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c); Smith, 2023 WL 308171, at *2.
Before the clerk's record was filed, Barajas filed various documents. In response, we issued an August 15, 2022 order stating that "the court will not consider any extraneous document submitted directly to this court by appellant that is outside the appellate record." To the extent that Barajas intended for this court to construe those documents as her brief, we also strike those documents.