Opinion
No. 04-16-00711-CV
06-15-2017
From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016CV04843
Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant filed his brief on June 12, 2017. The brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 in that it does not contain:
(1) a table of contents;See id. R. 38.1(b) (requiring table of contents), 38.1(c) (requiring index of authorities), 38.1(d) (requiring statement of case supported by record references that does not exceed one-half page); 38.1(f) (requiring concise statement of issues presented), 38.1(g) (requiring statement of facts with record reference), 38.1(h) (requiring succinct, clear, and accurate summary of arguments made in body of brief), 38.1(i) (requiring argument with appropriate citation to authority and record), and 38.1(k) (requiring appendix with copy of judgment or other appealable order, any jury charge and verdict form, any findings of fact and conclusions of law, and text of applicable rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, constitutional provisions, or other law on which argument is based, or any contract or other document central to argument).
(2) an index of authorities;
(3) a proper statement of the case;
(4) a proper statement of the issues presented, setting out what errors were allegedly committed by the trial court;
(5) a statement of facts with record references;
(6) a proper summary of the argument;
(7) proper legal argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record; or
(8) a proper appendix.
Although substantial compliance with Rule 38.1 is generally sufficient, this court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38.1. See id. R. 38.9(a). We conclude that the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of Rule 38.1.
We note that in his brief, appellant makes several "requests." In actuality, these motions in which appellant is requesting relief from this court. Appellant is advised that such requests should be made in motion form and in documents separate from the appellate brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a) (stating that party must apply by motion for order or other relief). However, we will consider the requests in the interest of judicial economy.
Appellant first asks requests that we consolidate this appeal with another action pending in Justice Court, Precinct 3. According to appellant, this pending action involves a violation of the Texas Property Code relating to the necessity of security devices. We DENY appellant's request. Appellant further requests "an order" for two additional reporter's record in this matter — specifically from hearings held on October 20 and 28, 2016. If appellant desires copies of these records, he should, pursuant to Rule 35.3(b)(2), request them in writing from the court reporter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(2). Thus, we DENY this request as well.
Appellant next requests that we give him "special consideration" because he lacks a home or office to properly work on his brief. We DENY this request. We recognize appellant is acting pro se on appeal. However, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules, including the rules governing appellate briefs. Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.).
With regards to appellant's brief, we ORDER it stricken and ORDER appellant to file an amended brief in this court on or before July 17, 2017. The amended brief must correct the violations listed above and fully comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See R. 38.1. If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we "may strike the brief, prohibit [appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [appellant] had failed to file a brief." See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief). Even if we do not strike the brief and prohibit appellant from filing another brief, we may find that any issues raised by appellant are waived due to inadequate briefing, and overrule those issues. See, e.g., Marin Real Estate Partners v. Vogt, 373 S.W.3d 57, 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, no pet.).
As noted above, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure, including the rules governing appellate briefs. Valadez, 238 S.W.3d at 845. A pro se litigant is required to properly present his case on appeal just as he is required to properly present his case to the trial court. Id. Accordingly, we will not apply different standards merely because an appeal is brought by a litigant acting without advice of counsel. Id.
If appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, appellee's brief will be due thirty days after appellant's brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).
Finally, we note that in his brief, appellant asks that he be permitted to supplement the brief. We DENY AS MOOT this request given that we have ordered the brief struck and an amended brief filed. If appellant desires to include additional information in his brief, he may include such information in his amended brief.
/s/_________
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of June, 2017.
/s/_________
Luz Estrada
Chief Deputy Clerk