Opinion
No. 10-02-346-CV.
Opinion delivered and filed June 4, 2003.
Appeal from the 52nd District Court, Coryell County, Texas, Trial Court #01-3-3841.
Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TDCJ inmate Michael Glenn Williams appeals from an order dismissing his suit for want of prosecution. The Clerk of this Court filed Williams's first brief on April 2, 2003. The Clerk sent the following notice to Williams regarding his brief on April 9:
[Appellant's] brief is deficient because it does not clearly state the reasons appellant believes the trial court's judgment is in error. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(e). Appellant is directed to file a brief which plainly states the grounds for his appeal within 20 days after the date of this letter. If appellant fails to comply, the appeal will continue as if appellant failed to file a brief. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.9(a).
The Clerk received an amended brief from Williams on April 29 which likewise failed to clearly state the grounds of error. The Clerk sent the following notice to Williams on May 8:
By letter dated April 9, 2003, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his original brief was deficient because it did not "clearly state the reasons appellant believes the trial court's judgment is in error." Appellant was directed to file an amended brief plainly stating the grounds for appeal within 20 days. The Court received Appellant['s] "3rd Brief" on April 29. However, this new brief still does not clearly state the grounds for appeal. If appellant fails to file a proper brief and provide a copy to counsel for appellees within 20 days after the date of this letter, his appeal may be dismissed. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.9.
The Clerk received another brief from Williams on May 20. An excerpt from this most recent brief serves to demonstrate that appellant still has not complied with the requirement of Rule 38.1(e) that an appellant's brief "must state concisely all issues or points presented for review." Id. 38.1(e). Under heading "I." of Williams's most recent brief, he states:
Appellant. the Testimony's where Impeachable of state's witnesses-Sergeant-Mr. Lyon's,-in hearing disciplinary, denial of his Presents can be found on Major cases Filed on September 18, 2001, he conducted. Fed. rule civil Proc. 609,-27(a)(2),-24(a)(b), And (2) case's dismissed that supposed to have been "expunged" invaild [sic] False Prejudice bias,-"Acts of bad Faith" Rebuttle [sic] witnesses denial's see Merritt v. Delos Santos, 712 F.2d 598 at 600.
Williams's May 20 "brief" does not comply with the prior directives sent him by the Clerk of this Court. Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) provides:
(a) Formal Defects. If the court determines that this rule has been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. If another brief that does not comply with this rule is filed, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.
Id. 38.9(a). Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) provides that if an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the Court may:
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief.
Id. 38.8(a)(1).
The Clerk of this Court notified Williams that his brief did not comply with Rule 38 and that he must file an amended brief within twenty days. Id. 38.9(a). The Clerk also notified him that his appeal may be dismissed if he failed to file a proper brief. Id. 42.3(b), 44.3. Williams has failed to file a proper brief after being given two opportunities to do so. Id. 42.3, 38.9(a). Therefore, we strike his May 20 brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3.
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.