Albert Ortiz v. Harris County

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 12, 2007
Docket14-07-00104-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Albert Ortiz v. Harris County (Albert Ortiz v. Harris County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Ortiz v. Harris County, (Tex. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2007

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00104-CV

ALBERT ORTIZ, ET AL., Appellants

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2005-19480

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed November 6, 2006.  No clerk=s record has been filed.  The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 


On March 15, 2007, notification was transmitted to all parties of the Court's intent to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).  Appellant filed no response.

Additionally, our records show that appellant has neither established indigence nor  paid the $125.00 appellate filing fee.  See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent);Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 98-9120 (Tex. Jul. 21, 1998) (listing fees in court of appeals); Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same).

After being given the requisite ten-days= notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not respondSee Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time)

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed April 12, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Edelman, and Seymore.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Albert Ortiz v. Harris County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-ortiz-v-harris-county-texapp-2007.