Opinion
12-24-00094-CV
05-15-2024
ROBERT ROBINSON, APPELLANT v. THE HONORABLE ANDY DUNKLIN, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT 2, SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 241ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Pro se litigants, such as Appellant, are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
A party who is not excused by statute or the appellate rules from paying costs must pay--at the time an item is presented for filing--whatever fees are required by statute or Texas Supreme Court order. TEX. R. APP. P. 5; see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. An appellate court may enforce Rule 5 by any order that is just. TEX. R. APP. P. 5. After giving ten days' notice, an appellate court may dismiss an appeal because the appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
On April 23, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant, Robert Robinson, that the filing fee in this appeal is due and the appeal would be subject to dismissal if the fee was not paid on or before May 3. The date for remitting the filing fee passed, and Appellant has not paid the fee or otherwise shown that he is excused from paying the fee.
The case information sheet from the Smith County District Clerk's Office reflects that Appellant was not declared indigent in the trial court.
Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Nor has Appellant filed the required docketing statement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. ADDITIONALLY, APPELLANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 51.017(A) OF THE TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter's record). We further note that the nonsuit was signed on February 22, 2024, but Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until April 18. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. AND THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING A NONSUIT, FROM WHICH APPELLANT APPEALS, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN APPEALABLE ORDER. See Matter of Marriage of Adams, No. 07-19-00136-CV, 2019 WL 1997668, at *1 (Tex. App.-Amarillo May 6, 2019, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also Franklin v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 02-11-00372-CV, 2012 WL 254028, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2012, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.