From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Warren Props., Inc.

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Jul 9, 2013
No. 04-13-00141-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 9, 2013)

Opinion

No. 04-13-00141-CV

07-09-2013

Marilyn STEWART, Appellant v. WARREN PROPERTIES, INC.,Agent For Vineyard Garden Apartments, Appellee


From the County Court at Law No. 9, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 383509

Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding


ORDER

Appellant filed his brief on June 24, 2013. The brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 in that it does not: (1) identify the parties and counsel; (2) include a table of contents; (3) include an index of authorities; (4) include a statement of the case; (5) include a brief statement of the issues presented; (6) include a statement of facts with record references; (7) include a summary of the argument; (8) include argument with appropriate citation to authorities and the appellate record; (9) include a prayer stating the nature of the relief sought; or (10) include an appendix. See id. R. 38.1(a) (requiring identity of parties and counsel), 38.1(b) (requiring table of contents), 38.1(c) (requiring index of authorities), 38.1(d) (requiring statement of the case), 38.1(f) requiring statement of issues presented, 38.1(g) (requiring statement of facts with record reference), 38.1(h) (requiring concise, accurate statement of arguments made in body of brief; 38.1(i) (requiring argument with appropriate citation to authority and record; 38.1(j) (requiring prayer stating nature of relief sought), 38.1(k) (requiring appendix with copy of judgment or other appealable order, any jury charge and verdict form, any findings of fact and conclusions of law, and text of applicable rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, constitutional provisions, or other law on which argument is based, or any contract or other document central to argument). Moreover, the brief does not comply with Rules 9.1 and 9.5. See id. R. 9.1(b) (requiring parties not represented by counsel to sign any document filed and give party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax number, if any), 9.5(a) (requiring party filing document to serve copy on all parties to proceeding), 9.5(d) (requiring document presented for filing to contain proof of service in form of acknowledgment of service by person served or certificate of service in accordance with Rule 9.5(e)).

Our review of appellant's "brief" shows it is nothing more than a letter asking this court to "review [her] case and find if the proper legal procedures were filed [sic] in regards to how the case was decided." Appellant is advised that as a pro se litigant, she must comply with all applicable procedural rules, and is held to the same standards as a licensed attorney. Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 611 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied); Sweed v. City of El Paso, 346 S.W.3d 679, 680 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, pet. denied). A pro se litigant is required to properly present her case on appeal. Sweed, 346 S.W.3d at 680-81. Accordingly, appellant must file a brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, including Rules 9.1, 9.4, 9.5, and 38.1.

Although substantial compliance with Rule 38.1 is generally sufficient, this court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). We conclude that the formal defects described above constitute flagrant violations of Rule 38.1.

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant's brief stricken and ORDER appellant to file an amended brief in this court on or before June 19, 2013. The amended brief must correct the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.1, 9.4, 9.5, and 38.1. If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we "may strike the brief, prohibit [appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [appellant] had failed to file a brief." See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss appeal if appellant fails to timely file brief).

If appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, appellee's brief will be due thirty days after appellant's brief is filed. See id. R. 38.6(b).

______________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of July, 2013.

______________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court


Summaries of

Stewart v. Warren Props., Inc.

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Jul 9, 2013
No. 04-13-00141-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 9, 2013)
Case details for

Stewart v. Warren Props., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Marilyn STEWART, Appellant v. WARREN PROPERTIES, INC.,Agent For Vineyard…

Court:Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Date published: Jul 9, 2013

Citations

No. 04-13-00141-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 9, 2013)