Michael L. Bird v. Angelique Ledesma
Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-20-00141-CV
Michael L. Bird, Appellant
v.
Angelique Ledesma, Appellee
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 306,462-D, THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Michael L. Bird filed his notice of appeal on February 24, 2020. On
April 1, 2020, he also filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which was docketed as Cause
Number 03-20-00222-CV. Soon after, appellant filed a motion to abate in this appeal stating that
he believed his mandamus proceeding was the correct procedural vehicle and that he had filed
his appeal to protect his appellate rights in the event this Court disagreed that mandamus was the
correct path.
In December 2020, this Court acted on appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus,
granting appellant partial relief. See In re Bird, No. 03-20-00222-CV, 2020 WL 7063583 (Tex.
App.—Austin Dec. 3, 2020, orig. proceeding). We then asked appellant to inform this Court
whether he intended to pursue the appeal. Appellant responded by instead asking that we extend
the time for him to reply until one day after the trial court acted in compliance with our mandamus opinion. We denied that request and informed appellant that he had until February
12, 2021, to respond to our inquiry and that we would dismiss the appeal if he did not file a
timely response. Appellant has not replied. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of
prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: February 25, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Michael L. Bird v. Angelique Ledesma (Michael L. Bird v. Angelique Ledesma) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.