Opinion
04-23-00810-CV
10-24-2023
Scott HARRISON, Appellant v. Barbara CHRISTMAN, et al, Appellee
From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-079 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Beth Watkins, Justice
On August 28, 2023, appellant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal in this court. On October 23, 2023, appellees Barbara Christman and Boerne Housing Authority filed an Emergency Motion for Contempt. Appellees' motion alleges that appellant has sent appellees' attorneys multiple e-mails containing "false accusations and inappropriate, harassing, and profane language[.]" The e-mails at issue, which were attached to appellees' motion, contain profane and sexually based insults directed at appellees' attorneys.
We hold pro se litigants to the same standards, including standards of conduct, as licensed attorneys. See Gleason v. Isbell, 145 S.W.3d 354, 357-58 (Tex App-Houston [14th Dist] 2004, no pet) (Frost, J, concurring in part and dissenting in part); Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 52-53 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). Accordingly, "[p]ro se litigants who come to court for justice bear an important responsibility to conduct themselves with dignity and decorum and to show respect for judges, opposing parties, counsel, and all others participating in the legal process." Gleason, 145 S.W.3d at 361. "[T]his Court will not allow the appeals process to be used by a litigant to make ad hominem attacks on an opposing party," its attorneys, or the attorneys' staff. Lookshin v. Feldman, 127 S.W.3d 100, 107 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).
The e-mails attached to appellees' Emergency Motion for Contempt do not comport with the standard of conduct this court demands of litigants appearing before it. However, at this time, we order appellees' motion HELD IN ABEYANCE. We caution appellant that abusive, profane, or harassing conduct directed at the opposing parties, their attorneys, the attorneys' staff, or this court and its staff will not be tolerated. If appellant engages in such conduct in the future, we may order him to appear in person to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. See Gleason, 145 S.W.3d at 361 (noting that "inappropriate and unacceptable conduct could subject [litigant] to serious consequences, including contempt or other sanctions").
Appellant's brief is due November 9, 2023.