Erin Jennings v. Unknown State Actors

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00378-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ERIN JENNINGS, ET AL., Appellants, v.

UNKNOWN STATE ACTORS, ET AL., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT OF DEWITT COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On July 24, 2025, proceeding

pro se, appellants Erin Jennings and Miles Sullivan filed a notice of appeal. On August 1, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that the notice of appeal was defective, specifically that it failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) and 9.5(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1, 9.5. On September 19, 2025, the Clerk of the Court again

2

notified appellants that the notice of appeal was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellants were notified that if the defects were not cured within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

On November 19, 2025, Umberto Anstasio Aswell filed a “Motion to Clarify Records,” asking this Court to “issue an order clarifying and updating the records in this cause to reflect the name of the filer as Umberto Anstasio Aswell.” To the extent this motion seeks to correct the name of one of the appellants, it is unclear which “filer” the motion is referring to. Moreover, the motion fails to include the address of the “filer” and a certificate of conference. See id. R. 9.1(b), 10.1(a)(5). Regardless, this motion fails to cure the defects in the notice of appeal and does not otherwise address the notice of appeal.

Appellants have failed to correct the defects in the notice of appeal and have otherwise not responded to the notices from the Clerk of the Court requiring a response or other action within the time specified. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Furthermore, the “Motion to Clarify Records” is denied as moot.

JENNY CRON

Justice

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