Opinion
02-23-00407-CV
08-29-2024
Rosita Solis Neu, Appellant v. Lorne William Neu, Appellee
On Appeal from the 362nd District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-0724-362.
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wade Birdwell, Justice.
After receiving pro se Appellant Rosita Solis Neu's brief on July 29, 2024, we notified her that her brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i) and 38.1(b), (c), (g), (h), (i), and (k). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i), 38.1(b)-(c), (g)-(i), (k). We directed Appellant to file an amended brief complying with the appellate rules no later than August 12, 2024, and warned her that the failure to do so could result in either the waiver of noncomplying points or the striking of her noncompliant brief and dismissal of her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3; 2nd Tex.App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. Appellant attempted to file a corrected brief, but it remains deficient. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i), 38.1(g)-(i); see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f).
"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." Branch v. Fannie Mae, No. 02-11-00355-CV, 2012 WL 3030525, at *1 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth July 26, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). Because Appellant has not followed the applicable laws and rules of procedure despite being given the opportunity to do so, we strike Appellant's initial and corrected briefs and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); In re D.L., No. 02-23-00057-CV, 2023 WL 4501849, at *1 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth July 13, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.).
Based on our disposition, we dismiss as moot Appellant's pending Motion for Relief from Judgment.