Opinion
04-23-00414-CV
06-06-2024
Carol Tindell, Appellant v. Earl Hildebrandt, Appellee
From the 456th District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-2401-CV-E Honorable Heather H. Wright, Judge Presiding.
ORDER
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice.
Appellant's brief was originally due on June 20, 2023. After, several extensions of the briefing deadline, appellant filed her brief on December 11, 2023; however, we struck the brief for failure to comply with the applicable appellate rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We ordered appellant to file an amended brief by February 5, 2024. On February 20, 2024, appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to file her brief. We granted the motion and ordered appellant's brief due on March 21, 2024, warning appellant that no further extensions of time would be allowed and that this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if appellant failed to timely file a brief. After appellant failed to file a brief by that deadline, we ordered appellant to file, by April 22, 2024, a written response reasonably explaining: (1) her failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant's failure to timely file a brief.
On April 29, 2024, appellant filed a document, which she dated April 22, 2024, requesting "one more time exten[s]ion." Additionally, on April 29, 2024, she filed a document that we construe as her amended appellant's brief. We GRANT appellant's request for an extension of time and deem her amended brief timely filed.
On May 28, 2024, she again filed a document requesting a "last time exten[s]ion."
Appellant's amended brief, however, does not fully comply with the applicable rules because, among other things, the brief does not contain a statement of facts with record references and a proper legal argument with appropriate citations to legal authorities and the appellate record. See id. R. 38.1(g), (i). We recognize appellant is acting pro se on appeal, but "a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure." Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Nevertheless, despite the amended briefs defects, we do not order appellant to file a second amended brief. However, the submission panel may determine that appellant has waived one or more issues due to inadequate briefing if the deficiencies are not corrected prior to submission. See Lott v. First Bank, No. 04-13-00311-CV, 2014 WL 4922896, at *4 (Tex. App-San Antonio Oct. 14, 2014, no pet.) (briefing waiver); Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med, 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App-Houston [14th Dist] 2008, no pet.) (same).
It is ORDERED that appellee's brief is due on July 8, 2024.