Esther Atigogo v. Towns of Chapel Hill

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 9, 2022

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00818-CV

ESTHER ATIGOGO, Appellant V. TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 007-03182-2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns After reviewing appellant’s pro se brief, we notified her that her brief was

deficient and provided a detailed explanation of why her brief did not meet the

requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. We noted that among other

things, appellant failed to provide a statement of facts and failed to provide a clear

and concise argument with appropriate citations to authorities or to the record. We

directed appellant to file an amended brief and cautioned her that failure to do so

might result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. Although given

the opportunity to file a corrected brief, appellant declined to do so. An appellant’s brief must substantially comply with the Rules of Appellate

Procedure—even if the appellant is pro se. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9; Washington v.

Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App—Dallas 2012, no pet.). As with other

error-preservation requirements, “[o]ur procedural [briefing] rules are technical, but

not trivial.” Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249, 258 (Tex. 2014) (discussing

practical importance of preservation requirements). The formal briefing

requirements in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are intended to ensure, among

other things, that an appellate court has the information necessary to resolve the

relevant issues while maintaining its role as a neutral adjudicator. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.9; see Ihnfeldt v. Reagan, No. 02-14-00220-CV, 2016 WL 7010922, at *9 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth Dec. 1, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Thus, to substantially

comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief must, at a

minimum, (1) not “flagrantly violat[e]” the formal briefing requirements; and (2)

present the issues, facts, and legal authorities so as to “acquaint the court with the

issues in [the] case and ... enable the court to decide the case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9;

see Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567, 569–70 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam).

We construe appellate briefs “liberally, but reasonably” so that the right to

appeal is not unnecessarily lost by waiver, and we will “not dismiss an appeal for a

procedural defect whenever any arguable interpretation of the rules of appellate

procedure would preserve the appeal.” Horton, 591 S.W.3d at 569–70; Ryland

Enter., Inc. v. Weatherspoon, 355 S.W.3d 664, 665 (Tex. 2011) (per curiam)

–2– (quoting Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Tex. 1997)). Here, however,

appellant failed to substantially comply with the rules; she flagrantly violated the

briefing requirements, and her violations prevent us from resolving the merits of the

appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1);

42.2(b), (c); Bolling v. Farmer’s Branch I.S.D., 315 S.W.3d 893, 897 (Tex. App—

Dallas 2010, no pet.).

/Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

210818F.P05

–3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ESTHER ATIGOGO, Appellant On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7, Collin County, Texas No. 05-21-00818-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 007-03182- 2021. TOWNS OF CHAPEL HILL, Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Appellee Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Judgment entered May 9, 2022

–4–