In the Matter of the Marriage of Brandon Hall and Esthela Alejandra Hall and in the Interest of I.H., S.H., and C.H., Children v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 13-24-00091-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00091-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF BRANDON HALL AND ESTHELA ALEJANDRA HALL AND IN THE INTEREST OF I.H., S.H., AND C.H., CHILDREN

ON APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s “Third Motion for Leave to File Third

[sic] Amended Brief.” Appellant filed his initial brief in this matter on October 28, 2024,

and he filed amended briefs on December 9, 2024; March 3, 2025; March 14, 2025; and

April 8, 2025. On April 9, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his fourth

1 This appeal was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to an order issued

by the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. amended brief did not conform to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(h), 9.4(j)(5),

and 9.9; directed appellant to file an amended brief which fully complies with the appellate

rules on or before 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 11, 2025; and notified appellant that if he files

another non-compliant brief, it will be struck, appellant may be prohibited from filing

another brief, and the Court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and appellant’s

failure to comply with this Court’s directive and the appellate rules. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.9(a), 42.3(b).

On April 15, 2025, appellant filed the instant motion, which we construe as a motion

for leave to file a fifth amended brief. Upon review of the proposed fifth amended brief,

we find that it does not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(g), 9.4(h),

9.4(j)(5), 9.9, and 38.1(b).

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they

must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v.

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). Accordingly, consistent with our prior orders

and in the interest of justice, we hereby DENY appellant’s “Third Motion for Leave to File

Third [sic] Amended Brief.” Further, we DISMISS the appeal for want of prosecution and

for failure to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within

a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). Any other pending motions are

denied as moot.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 17th day of April, 2025.