Opinion
No. 05-09-01048-CV
Opinion issued April 15, 2010.
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 08-05586.
Before Justices RICHTER, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se appellants Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Willms appeal the trial court's orders granting the State's plea to the jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss of appellees Jimmy Wilson d/b/a Americas Automotive and Americas Tire Co., Inc. (collectively, Americas). The trial court dismissed the lawsuit because the Willmses previously were declared vexatious litigants and failed to obtain permission from the local administrative judge to proceed in this new lawsuit as required by section 11.102 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In four issues, the Willmses contend the trial court erred in granting the State's plea to the jurisdiction without challenging the State's claims; dismissing their claims against Americas in violation of their right to a jury trial; and failing to issue factual findings and legal conclusions with either order. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court's orders.
This lawsuit is one of many lawsuits filed by the Willmses and arises out of a 1996 dispute with Americas involving the engine repair of their 1984 Chrysler automobile. The Willmses filed this suit in May 2008, alleging fraud in connection with a July 2003 order issued by the trial court declaring them to be vexatious litigants. They previously challenged that order, which was affirmed on appeal. See Willms v. Americas Tire Co., 190 S.W.3d 796, 806 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). According to the Willmses' petition here, that 2003 order and judgment "were rendered against [them] as the result of fraud by one or both of the defendants." They claim the State is liable for the alleged fraud as "the party responsible for the establishment and operation of the Courts addressed in this claim." The Willmses also allege the trial court "failed to make Americas prove the elements of res judicata."
The State filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. The trial court granted the plea and dismissed the Willmses' claims against the State. Americas filed an answer, request for sanctions, and motion to dismiss, arguing "willful violation" of the vexatious litigant statute and seeking sanctions. The trial court granted Americas's motion based on the Willmses' failure, as vexatious litigants, "to seek and receive permission to file the present litigation," but denied Americas's request for sanctions. This appeal followed.
The Willmses' original appellate brief was deficient. We notified them of the multiple deficiencies and directed them to file an amended brief. Most notably, the brief did not contain appropriate citations to the record and legal authorities as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(d), (g), and (i). The Willmses' amended brief failed to correct all the listed deficiencies. Specifically, the brief still contains no citations to the clerk's record as required by rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d), (g), (i). Instead, the Willmses reference documents contained in an appendix to their brief. For one contention, they also state "[c]opies of all exhibits are available to anyone by e-mail upon request to the undersigned." Citations to an appendix are not substitutes for citations to the record. See Yoonessi v. D'Arcy, No. 05-07-00689-CV, 2008 WL 4981631, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 25, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Other deficiencies are the Willmses' failure to analyze the issues in any meaningful way and the lack of substantive relationship between the arguments and specific or correct legal theories. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).
This is not the first time the Willmses have filed deficient briefs. See, e.g., Willms, 190 S.W.3d at 801, 806 (unclear subpoints, not legal appellate issues as required by rule 38.1); Willms v. Wilson, No. 05-08-01718-CV, 2009 WL 4283109, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Dec. 2, 2009, no pet.) (no citations to clerk's record). We must emphasize that although pro se pleadings and briefs are to be liberally construed, a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677-78 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Thus, on appeal, as at trial, the Willmses must properly present their case. Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678.
When a party fails to brief a complaint adequately, he waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas County, 130 S.W.3d 512, 513-14 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.); see also In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 212 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). Here, the Willmses offer no meaningful legal analysis and fail to support their contentions with appropriate citations to the appellate record, despite an opportunity to correct these deficiencies. We therefore conclude nothing is preserved for our review. Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678. Additionally, it is undisputed the Willmses failed to obtain permission from the local administrative judge to proceed with this case as required by section 11.102 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Accordingly, we overrule their issues and affirm the trial court's orders.