Michael Newsome v. Houston Police Officer's Pension System, Terry Bratton, D.Trey Coleman, George Guerrero, Steven Le, Don A. Sanders and Melissa Dubowski

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 26, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00020-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 26, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00020-CV ——————————— MICHAEL NEWSOME, Appellant V. HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS’ PENSION SYSTEM, TERRY BRATTON, D. TREY COLEMAN, GEORGE GUERRERO, STEVE LE, DON A. SANDERS, AND MELISSA DUBOWSKI, Appellees

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-82123

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 8, 2024, appellant, Michael Newsome, filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s December 20, 2023 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction

of appellees, the Houston Police Officers’ Pension System, Terry Bratton, D. Trey Coleman, George Guerrero, Steve Le, Don A. Sanders, and Melissa Dubowski

(collectively, “appellees”). Appellant has neither paid the required fees nor

established indigence for purposes of costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP.

P. 5, 20.1; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.851(b), 51.941(a);

Order, Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals,

and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No.

15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). On January 31, 2024, appellant was notified that this

appeal was subject to dismissal if appellate costs were not paid, or indigence was not

established, by March 1, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not

adequately respond.

Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the

preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). On February 16,

2024, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant did

not submit written evidence that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee

for the preparation of the clerk’s record by February 26, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not adequately respond.

Based on appellant’s failure to pay appellate costs, or pay or make

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record, on March 5, 2024,

appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. More than

ten days have passed, and appellant has not responded to appellees’ motion to

2 dismiss. Further, appellees’ motion states that appellant has “indicated he is not

opposed to [appellees’] motion to dismiss.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a).

Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for

nonpayment of all required fees and want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5,

42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.