Ahmad Yazdchi A/K/A Al Giovanni v. Peggy Ann Nowlin, Individually and as Sole Independent of the Estate of Donald H. Nowlin

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00389-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

AHMAD YAZDCHI A/K/A AL GIOVANNI , Appellant,

v.

PEGGY ANN NOWLIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SOLE INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD H. NOWLIN, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 197TH DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

On July 29, 2024, appellant Ahmad Yazdchi a/k/a Al Giovanni filed a pro se notice of appeal from a final judgment in a case involving slander of title, statutory fraud, and a

fraudulent deed. On August 6, 2024, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his

notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)(2), (8),

and 25.1(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2), (8), 25.1(e). The Clerk requested correction

of these defects, if possible, and advised appellant that the appeal would be referred to

the Court for further action if a proper notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days. See

id. R. 37.1.

On September 24, 2024, the Clerk again notified appellant regarding these

defects, requested correction, and advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed

if the defects were not cured within ten days. See id. However, this letter was returned to

the Court with the designation “RETURN TO SENDER, UNCLAIMED, UNABLE TO

FORWARD.” See id. R. 9.1(b).

Subsequently, on October 25, 2024, after appellant provided the Court with his

current address, the Clerk again notified appellant regarding these defects, requested

correction, and advised appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were

not cured within ten days. See id. According to the certified mail return receipt, appellant

received the Clerk’s letter. Nevertheless, appellant has not filed an amended notice of

appeal correcting these defects and has not otherwise responded to the Clerk’s directive.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, the

foregoing events, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal should be

dismissed for want of prosecution. See Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75,

76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (“While it is true we liberally construe pro se

2 pleadings and briefs, a pro se litigant is still required to comply with applicable laws and

rules of procedure.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 13th day of February, 2025.