Opinion
NUMBER 13-17-00280-CV
12-07-2017
JOSE ANDRES DE LA FUENTE, Appellant, v. VALSEV, LLC, ROEL RODRIGUEZ, AND PEDRO DIAZ, IV, Appellees.
On appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 of Hidalgo County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on October 4, 2017. On October 4, 2017, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1.
On October 4, 2017, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (b), (d), (g), (i), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief does not contain a table of contents with references to the pages of the brief as required by Rule 38.1(b); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented as required by Rule 38.1(d); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented supported by record references as required by Rule 38.1(g); does not contain a clear and concise argument made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record as required by Rule 38.1(i); and does not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Additionally, the brief lacks page numbering. See id. 38.1 (b).
Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court's notice.
Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). If the appellate court determines that the briefing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file another brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, we strike appellant's non-conforming brief and order the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b)(c).
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice Delivered and filed the 7th day of December, 2017.