in the Interest of A.A., a Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 05-21-00331-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirm and Opinion Filed January 5, 2023

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00331-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-51855-2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Nowell Pro se appellant Ali Azhar appeals the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce,

which was entered following a bench trial. Texas law recognizes the right for civil

litigants to proceed on their own behalf in court, pro se. Bolling v. Farmers Branch

ISD, 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). That said, we hold

pro se litigants to the same standards for pleading, briefing, and procedure as we do

lawyers. Canady v. City of Dallas, No. 05-21-00250-CV, 2022 WL 2951668, at *1

(Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Mansfield State Bank

v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Washington v. Bank of N.Y., 362

S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). Pro se appellants must follow the appellate rules for briefing appeals to this court, and though we do not require

rigid adherence regarding the form of a brief, we examine briefs closely for

compliance with rules governing the content of appellate briefs. Id. (citing

Hammonds v. Dallas Cty., No. 05-18-01433-CV, 2020 WL 948383, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Feb. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.)). To do otherwise would give pro

se litigants an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Id.

In this case, appellant’s brief fails to comply with numerous requirements of

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. For example, the brief does not provide

any citations to authorities or to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c), (d), (g), (i).

After receiving appellant’s brief, this Court notified appellant by letter that his

brief was deficient; the letter described the brief’s deficiencies rule by rule—

including those cited above—and provided a timetable for remedying them.

Appellant then filed a motion for extension of time to file a rule-compliant brief,

which we granted. Yet, to date, we still do not have a rule-compliant brief. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.9, 44.3 (“A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or

dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without

allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregularities.”); see

also Canady, 2022 WL 2951668, at *2.

The deficiencies in appellant’s briefing are not negligible matters of form but

instead run afoul of “rules that govern the content of appellate briefs.” See Canady,

2022 WL 2951668, at *2 (citing Hammonds, 2021 WL 5410519, at *2). Because

–2– appellant did not amend his brief to correct the deficiencies and provide adequate

substantive briefing on any complaint, we conclude appellant’s brief presents

nothing for our review. Canady, 2022 WL 2951668, at *2 (citing Melton v.

LegacyTexas Bank, No. 05-11-01048-CV, 2012 WL 1378490, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Apr. 18, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)).

We affirm the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce.

/Erin A. Nowell// 210331f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE

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

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A On Appeal from the 416th Judicial CHILD District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416-51855- No. 05-21-00331-CV 2020. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Partida-Kipness and Kennedy participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Final Decree of Divorce is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee Hajra Hussain recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Ali Azhar.

Judgment entered this 5th day of January 2023.

–4–