Opinion
No. 04-17-00556-CV
11-07-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF S.R.V., A CHILD
From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016PA01961
Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant timely filed her brief on October 26, 2017. The brief does not comply with several provisions of 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); 38.1(f) (requiring statement of issues presented), 38.1(g) (requiring statement of facts with record reference), 38.1(h) (requiring summary of argument, 38.1(i) (requiring argument with appropriate citation to authority and record), 38.1(j) (requiring short conclusion that clearly states nature of relief sought; 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); id. R. 9.4(i)(3) (requiring that computer generated documents include a certificate of compliance stating the number of words in document); id. R. 9.5 (requiring filing party to serve copy of filing on all parties and include a certificate of service stating he has complied with such service).
(2) an index of authorities;
(3) a proper statement of the case with sufficient record references;
(4) a brief statement of the issues presented, setting out what errors were allegedly committed by the trial court;
(5) include a statement of facts with sufficient record references;
(6) a proper summary of the argument;
(7) proper legal argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record;
(8) a prayer;
(9) a certificate of service;
(10) a certificate of compliance; or
(11) a proper appendix.
Moreover, the brief is not properly formatted. First, it appears that the brief filed does not have at least one-inch margins on both sides as required by Rule 9.4(c). Id. R 9.4(c). Second, it also appears as if the typeface is smaller than that permitted by Rule 9.4(e), which requires that a document printed on a computer be printed in typeface no smaller than 14-point type, except for footnotes. Id. R. 9.4(e). Third, the brief violates Rule 9.9 in that it includes sensitive data, specifically the name of minors, and such data has not been redacted to protect the identity of the children. Id. R. 9.9 (indicating sensitive data, such as the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed, may not be filed with the court and must be redacted).
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. as well as Rules 9.4 and 9.9.
Accordingly, we ORDER appellant's brief stricken and ORDER appellant to file an amended brief in this court on or before November 15, 2017. The amended brief must correct the violations listed above and fully comply with Rule 38.1 as well as Rules 9.4, 9.5 and 9.9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 9.9, 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.).
We recognize that appellant represents herself on appeal, i.e., she is acting pro se. However, the law is clear that 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 v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.). A pro se litigant is required to properly present her case on appeal just as she is required to properly present her 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 twenty days after appellant's brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this brief on appellant and all counsel.
/s/_________
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of November, 2017.
/s/_________
KEITH E. HOTTLE,
Clerk of Court