Donald C. Jackson v. Joe M. Lopez, Michael W. Morgan, and Tawn Roddey

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 22, 2006
• Docket: 13-05-00030-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-05-030-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

DONALD C. JACKSON,                                             Appellant,

                                           v.

JOE M. LOPEZ, MICHAEL W. MORGAN,

AND TAWN RODDEY,                                               Appellees.

                   On appeal from the 23rd District Court

                           of Brazoria County, Texas.

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION^[1]

      Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

Appellant, Donald C. Jackson, an inmate at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), pro se  and in forma pauperis filed suit against appellees, Joe M. Lopez, Michael W. Morgan, and Tawn Roddey, alleging that his civil rights had been violated.^[2]  The trial court dismissed appellant's suit.  By one issue, appellant contends that the trial court had no arguable basis in law to determine that his suit against prison employees was frivolous.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. '' 14.001-.014 (Vernon 2002).  We affirm.

"A pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure."  Green v. Kaposta, 152 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Tex. App.BDallas 2005, no pet.) (citing Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.BDallas 2004, no pet.); see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184‑85 (Tex. 1978) (providing that litigants who represent themselves must comply with the applicable procedural rules, or else they would be given an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel); cf. Minix v. Gonzales, 162 S.W.3d 635, 637 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (applying the Haines rule, the court concluded that "[a] pro se inmate's petition should be viewed with liberality and patience and is not held to the stringent standards applied to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys.").  Therefore, "[o]n appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly present its case."  Green, 152 S.W.3d at 841.

In a civil case, this Court will accept as true the facts stated unless another party contradicts them.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f).  Appellee, the State, has filed no brief in this appeal.  Therefore, the State has not contradicted the facts presented by appellant.  However, the rules of appellate procedure require that an appellant's brief contain "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record."  Id. at rule 38.1(h).  The facts presented in appellant's brief must, therefore, be supported by record references.  In this case, however, appellant has provided no record cites to support the facts stated therein.  Additionally, in support of his contentions, appellant attached, as part of the appendix to his brief, the TDCJ disposition of confiscated offender property form and the TDCJ disciplinary report and hearing record; however, these documents do not appear in the record.  An appellate court cannot consider documents if they are not formally included in the record on appeal.  See Green, 152 S.W.3d at 841.

We have little latitude on appeal and can neither remedy deficiencies in a litigant's brief nor supply an adequate record.  Id.  And we have no duty to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether the error complained of occurred.  See id.  Because appellant failed to provide us with a complete record or to adequately brief his issue on appeal, he has presented nothing for our review.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).  We overrule appellant's issue.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this 22nd day of June, 2006.

---

^[1]As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we will

not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of this Court=s decision and the basic reasons for it.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

^[2]All appellees were employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.