Opinion
01-24-00020-CV
03-26-2024
MICHAEL NEWSOME, Appellant v. HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS' PENSION SYSTEM, TERRY BRATTON, D. TREY COLEMAN, GEORGE GUERRERO, STEVE LE, DON A. SANDERS, AND MELISSA DUBOWSKI, Appellees
On Appeal from the 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-82123.
Panel consists of Adams, Chief Justice and Guerra and Farris, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On January 8, 2024, appellant, Michael Newsome, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's December 20, 2023 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction of appellees, the Houston Police Officers' Pension System, Terry Bratton, D. Trey Coleman, George Guerrero, Steve Le, Don A. Sanders, and Melissa Dubowski (collectively, "appellees"). Appellant has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145; Tex.R.App.P. 5, 20.1; see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a); Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On January 31, 2024, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence was not established, by March 1, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond.
Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). On February 16, 2024, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant did not submit written evidence that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk's record by February 26, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond.
Based on appellant's failure to pay appellate costs, or pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk's record, on March 5, 2024, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. More than ten days have passed, and appellant has not responded to appellees' motion to dismiss. Further, appellees' motion states that appellant has "indicated he is not opposed to [appellees'] motion to dismiss." See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). Accordingly, we grant appellees' motion and dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.