Erin Jennings v. Unknown State Actors

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00378-CV
• Status: Published

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 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.