Summary
stating that pro se parties are treated the same as licensed attorneys to ensure fairness in the treatment of all litigants
Summary of this case from Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Opinion
NO. 02-11-00355-CV
07-26-2012
ANTHONY BRANCH AND ALL OCCUPANTS APPELLANTS v. FANNIE MAE A/K/A FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION APPELLEE
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
On June 1, 2012, we notified Appellant Anthony Branch that his brief did not comply with appellate rules of procedure 9.4(h) and 38.1(d), (f), (i), and (k) and local rule 1.A(8). We allowed Appellant until June 11, 2012, to file an amended brief that complied with the above rules. We stated in our letter to Appellant that his failure to timely file an amended brief in compliance with the above rules could result in the waiver of noncompliant points, our striking his brief, or the dismissal of his appeal.We received Appellant's amended brief on June 11, 2012, but it too was noncompliant and therefore not filed by this court.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (f), (i), (k); 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1.A(8).
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (i), (k).
We liberally construe pro se briefs, but to ensure fairness in our treatment of all litigants, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require pro se litigants to follow the applicable laws and rules of procedure.Accordingly, we strike Appellant's brief, deny his request to supplement his original brief, and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.
SeeMansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 835 (2000).
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), (c).
--------
PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.