Elizabeth A. McNutt v. Sentry Casualty Company and Gregory D. Solcher, Attorney for Sentry Casualty Company

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00141-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00141-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

ELIZABETH A. MCNUTT, Appellant,

v.

SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY AND GREGORY D. SOLCHER, ATTORNEY FOR SENTRY CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 2ND 25TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAVACA COUNTY, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On April 25, 2025, before the

appellate record was complete, appellant submitted a pro-se brief which generally failed

to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. On

July 24, 2025, upon receipt of the complete appellate record, the Clerk of the Court sent appellant notice of the defects in her brief and instructed her to file an amended brief on

or before August 22, 2025. On August 22, 2025, appellant submitted another non-

compliant brief. On August 25, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant of the

defects and instructed appellant to file an amended brief within ten days from the date of

the notice. Appellant was further notified that if she files another brief that does not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit the

party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.9(a).

On September 19, 2025, appellant untimely filed a second amended brief. Again,

it failed to conform to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, on October

2, 2025, we ordered appellant to amend the brief to conform to the rules within twenty

days of the Order. We further ordered that if another brief does not comply, it may be

stricken, and the appellant may be prohibited from filing another brief. See id. R. 38.9.

Appellant was also notified that, in such a circumstance, we may dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution and for appellant’s failure to comply with this Court’s directive and

the appellate rules. See id. R. 42.3(b)(c).

On October 27, 2025, appellant filed a third amended brief. Upon review of

appellant’s third amended brief, we are of the opinion that it fails to comply with Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3) and 38.1(a), (b), (c), (g), and (i). See id. R. 9.4(i)(3),

38.1(a), (b), (c), (g), (i). Furthermore, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as

licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure.

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).

2 If a party files a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and

proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the

appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a).

Additionally, an appellate court may on its own initiative, after giving ten days’ notice,

dismiss a case for want of prosecution or because the appellant failed to comply with the

rules or notice from the clerk required a response or action. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

Accordingly, we strike appellant’s non-conforming brief and order the appeal

dismissed for want of prosecution. See id.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 11th day of December, 2025.