Opinion
No. 05-10-00527-CV
Opinion issued April 27, 2011.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. cc-08-05314-A.
Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Felix Ugwonali appeals the trial court's judgment that he take nothing on his claims against Eunice Agbor and ME Okere. Representing himself without an attorney, Ugwonali filed an appellant's brief. We notified Ugwonali the brief was deficient and instructed him to file an amended brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ugwonali filed an amended brief. Because his amended brief is also deficient and fails to comply with long-established briefing rules, we will dismiss his appeal.
In Texas, an individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 7; Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex. 1983) (orig. proceeding); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). The right of self-representation (or being what is commonly called a "pro se litigant"), carries with it the responsibility to adhere to the rules of evidence and procedure, including the appellate rules of procedure if the party chooses to represent himself at the appellate level. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Strange v. Continental Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Courts regularly caution pro se litigants that they will not be treated differently than a party who is represented by a licensed attorney. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Mansfield, 573 S.W.2d at 184-85; In re N.E.B, 251 S.W.3d 211, 212 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).
In this case, our notice to Ugwonali stated that his "failure to file an amended brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of this letter may result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice from the Court." Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. Tex. R. App. P. 38. These rules require appellants to state concisely the complaint they may have, provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument for why their complaint has merit in fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with record references that are appropriate. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i). Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the other. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. We are not responsible for identifying possible trial court error. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Canton-Carter v. Baylor College of Medicine, 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). We are not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283-84 (Tex. 1994); Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678. And we are not responsible for doing the legal research that might support a party's contentions. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Canton-Carter, 271 S.W.3d at 931-32. Were we to do so, even for a pro se litigant untrained in law, we would be abandoning our role as judges and become an advocate for that party. Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895; see Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2007, no pet.).
When deciding whether an appellant's brief is deficient, we do not adhere to any rigid rule about the form of a brief. Pro se litigants may not be versed in the form of briefing favored by seasoned appellate practitioners. We do, however, examine briefs for compliance with prescribed briefing rules, including specifically in this case, rule 38.1. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. And we examine every brief closely. If we can conclude a brief complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we submit the appeal for review and decision on the merits. If we cannot, we may dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. In this case, we conclude Ugwonali, although given the opportunity, has failed to comply with our briefing rules. Without adequate briefing, his claim is nothing more than a personal opinion. As such, it is not entitled to judicial review. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897.
Because Ugwonali has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss Ugwonali's appeal.