Hayward Andrew Jackson Junior v. Fort Bend County Fort Bend County Emergency Services District 7l Fort Bed County General Fund Fort Bend County Drainage District Fort Bend County Fresh Water Supply District 01 Fort Bend Independent School District

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 22, 2024
• Docket: 01-22-00880-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 22, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00880-CV ——————————— ANDREW HAYWARD JACKSON, JR., Appellant V. FORT BEND COUNTY, FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, FORT BEND COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 7, FORT BEND COUNTY FRESH WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT NO. 1, FORT BEND COUNTY GENERAL FUND, AND FORT BEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 240th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 21-DCV-282688

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Andrew Hayward Jackson, Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a notice of

appeal from the trial court’s October 25, 2022 judgment. Certain appellees, namely

Fort Bend County, Fort Bend County, Fort Bend County Drainage District, Fort Bend County Emergency Service District No. 7, Fort Bend County Fresh Water

Supply District No. 1, and Fort Bend County General Fund (collectively, the “Fort

Bend Appellees”), filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution,

asserting that appellant has failed to timely file a brief.

We grant the Fort Bend Appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution.

The clerk’s record was filed on January 24, 2023, and the appellate record was

completed on July 17, 2023 when the reporter’s record was filed. Appellant’s brief

was therefore originally due on or before August 16, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a), (d). On the motion of appellant, the deadline for filing his brief was

extended to December 18, 2023. However, no brief was filed.

Based on appellant’s failure to timely file his brief, the Fort Bend Appellees

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More than ten days have passed since the motion to dismiss was

filed, and appellant has not adequately responded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Accordingly, we grant the Fort Bend Appellees’ motion and dismiss this

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), 43.2(f). All pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.