Mayra Miranda, Individually and as Next of Kin, MM v. Arnulfo Gonzalez

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00141-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00141-CV __________________

MAYRA MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT OF KIN, MM, Appellant

V.

ARNULFO GONZALEZ, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-08-12850 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 25, 2026, “Mayra Miranda, Individually and as Next of Kin, MM,”

hereinafter “Appellant,” filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment signed on

February 21, 2026. Upon receiving the notice of appeal from Appellant, the Clerk

of the Court issued an invoice for the filing fee for the appeal. By letter dated May

11, 2026, we notified the parties that Appellant has not paid the filing fee as directed

in our letter and invoice previously forwarded to Appellant. A Certified Bill of Costs

1 for the filing fee was enclosed and provided to Appellant. We warned Appellant in

our letter dated May 11, 2026, that unless the filing fee was paid, the appeal would

be dismissed without further notice on any date after Tuesday, May 26, 2026. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). As of this date, Appellant has failed to pay the filing fee as

directed by this Court.

On May 5, 2026, the District Clerk notified the Court that Appellant had failed

to pay or to make the arrangements necessary for the District Clerk to prepare the

clerk’s record. We notified the parties that Appellant had not established indigent

status, and that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to Appellant’s failure to pay

or to arrange to pay the fee required to prepare the clerk’s record. We warned

Appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless

Appellant established that it had made the arrangements required to pay the fee or

that she needed more time to do so. See id. 37.3(b). After the Clerk of this Court sent

the parties a letter warning of the consequences of a failure to take the action

necessary to file the clerk’s record, the Court did not receive a response.

Appellant has not paid the filing fee for the appeal, nor has Appellant

explained why she has not paid the fee for the clerk’s record; therefore, we dismiss

the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. 5, 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

2 APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 24, 2026 Opinion Delivered June 25 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.