Mark Sanders v. Dallas County

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-01089-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01089-CV

MARK SANDERS, Appellant V. DALLAS COUNTY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-22-00743

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Reichek, and Justice Garcia Opinion by Justice Reichek Appellant filed his brief on March 15, 2024. We then notified appellant, who

is proceeding pro se, that his brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the

brief, including that it did not contain an index of authority indicating the pages of

the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the case supported by

record references. Further, the argument section of the brief does not contain any

citations to the record or to any authorities. We instructed appellant to file an

amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we cautioned appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file

an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date,

appellant has failed to do so.

The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in

a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9. The right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in

accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to

concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and

specific arguments in support of appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities,

and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1

(Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling v. Farmers Branch

Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even

liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with

the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear,

concise, specific arguments, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38.

Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellant did not do so.

–2– Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK 231089F.P05 JUSTICE

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

MARK SANDERS, Appellant On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-23-01089-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. TX-22-00743. Opinion delivered by Justice DALLAS COUNTY, Appellee Reichek. Chief Justice Burns and Justice Garcia participating.

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

Judgment entered July 24, 2024

–4–