(LA-
PagelBlEEDIN 14S COURT OFAPPEALS HOUSTON. TCYAS
Cause #11-DCV-187877 JUN ~3 2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK NEWELL M. EVANS IN THE DISTRIST ) VS 240th JUDICIAL DI ( ) LLiST THEODORE P. FULLER ( FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
Cause # 14-14-01019-CV
NEWELL M. EVANS ) In the 14th COURT of APPEALS
VS Houston, Texas, Harris County
THEODORE P. FULLER
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDEGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
To: The Clerk of the District Court Fort Bend County, Texas.
From: Newell M. Evans 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. #281-341-6636
Re: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST of INDIGENCE.
Dear Ms. Elfoitt
How are you? I pray that you and yours are fine. We are Ok. Page 2 of 2
I'm submitting two (2) complete copies of appellant Newell M. Evans' motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence. One for the Court; and one to be returned to me.
Please find for filing among these papers: (1) appellant Newell M. Evans' motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence. (2) Order; (3) Certificate of Service at Last Known Address.
Please stamp my copy of this appellant's motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence and return it to me. Please, immediately send original to the Court. ASAP.
Thanks in advance for your customary assistance with this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
%; Y^^Ac— M. Evans- Pro se 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. # 281-341-6636 The_Masterprogrammer@yahoo.com Page 1 of 10
Cause # ll-DCV-187877
NEWELL M. EVANS ( IN THE DISTR1ST COURT ) VS ( 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THEODORE P. FULLER ( FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
NEWELL M. EVANS In the 14th COURT of APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
To the Honorable Judge Thomas R. Culver III, and to the Honorable Judges ofthe 14th Court of Appeals:
Now comes Newell M. Evans, here-in-after,referred to as appellant; moving
this District Court ofJudge Thomas R. Culver III (240th Judicial District, Fort
Bend County); and to the Honorable Judges of the 14th Court of Appeals:
for reconsideration of order sustaining contest ofindigencefiled on May 13,' 15,
by Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz. Alternatively, appellant moves this Court of Page 2 of 10
Appeals to admit "late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for review of order
sustaining contest of indigence. (And, accede to an informal (T.R.A. P. # 2)
Motion to Suspend the Rules; and to allow an Extension of Time (20 days) to File
Informal Briefon this Motion to Extend Time for Review of Order Sustaining
Contest of Indigence (pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and
conclusions of law); wherein, here-in-after, Theodore P. Fuller, is appellee. In
support of this motion reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence filed
on May 13,' 15, by Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz, (And, alternatively, appellant
moves this Court of Appeals to admit "late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for
review of order sustaining contest of indigence (and, accede to an informal (T.R.A.
P. # 2) Motion to Suspend the Rules; and to allow an Extension of Time (20 days)
to File Informal Brief on this Motion to Extend Time for Review of Order
Sustaining Contest of Indigence (pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of
facts and conclusions of law)); appellant would show unto the Court(s) as follows.
I PRELEMINARY MATTERS
The relevant pleadings and exhibits submitted with/included in "First
Amended of Notice of Intention to Appeal Denial of Motion for
Reinstatement" (Filed with the Clerk of 14th Court of Appeals - Houston,
Texas, on Dec. 29, *14); and Request for an Extension of Time to File
Accelerated Appeal of Denial of Motion for Reinstatement (Filed with the Page 3 of 10
Clerk of 14th Court of Appeals - Houston, Texas, on Mar. 30, '15); are hereby
adopted by reference; as if incorporated verbatim.
No extensions oftime have previously been granted in this "Motion for
Reconsideration; or alternative motion to Extend Time for Review of Order
Sustaining Contest of Indigence."
This is not an appeal in a termination of parental right case; nor is it an appeal in
child protection case.
Appellant believes that under 10.5(b)(1)(A) and 20.1G)(2) ofthe T.R.A.P; that
motion for review of order sustaining contest of indigence, should've been filed by
May 24th, '15. But, appellant did not have actual knowledge of the "Written Order
Sustaining Contest of indigence," until May 26. '15. Applying 10.5(b)(1)(A) and
20.1(j)(2) ofthe T.R.A.P; the motion for review of order sustaining contest of
indigence, should be filed by June 08th, "15.
Appellant in this motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of
indigence; by informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) motion to suspend the rules; beeches this
14th Court of Appeals to allow an extension of time (20 days) to file informal brief Page 4 of 10
on this motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence;
pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Appellant does not believe a conference with any opposing party should be
required; as prerequisite to filing the motion for reconsideration/review.
II Supervening Issue
This contest of indigence was tried to Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz; under District
Court Judge Thomas R. Culver III (240th Judicial District, Fort Bend County).
As Associate Judge, Pedro Ruiz, takes pains to explain to litigants that his rulings
are "appealable," to his immediate supervisor; 240th Judicial District Court Judge
in Fort Bend County, Thomas R. Culver III.
So, appellant files this motion for reconsideration with that in mind. Appellant
understands that under 20.1(j)(l) and (2) of the T.R.A.P; that "review," of order
sustaining contest of indigence, should be by motion to the court of appeals; within
10 days after the order sustaining the contest is signed, or within 10
days after the notice of appeal is filed, whichever is later. Page 5 of 10
But, as stated, Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz, takes pains to explain to litigants that
his rulings are "appealable," to his immediate supervisor; 240th Judicial District
Court Judge in Fort Bend County, Thomas R. Culver III.
Consequently, appellant pray that this 14th Court of Appeals acknowledge receipt
of appellant's "Motion for Review," of Associate judge Ruiz's May 13th, '15 order
sustaining the contest of indigence. Then abate said motion; pending outcome of
appellant's motion for reconsideration ofAssociate judge Ruiz's May 13th, '15
order sustaining the contest of indigence; by Judge Culver.
In the event that appellant's motion for reconsideration is "summarily denied,"
appellant's prays that the trial court would at least provide the appellate court with
findings of fact, and conclusions of law; pursuant to Associate judge, Ruiz's May
13th, '15 order sustaining the contest ofindigence.
Ill Procedural Matters
1. This contest of indigence was tried to Associate Judge, Pedro Ruiz; under
District Court Judge, Thomas R. Culver IH (240th Judicial District, Fort Bend
County). After a continuance or two, the final hearing was held on May 07,
'15. The written "Order Sustaining Contest of indigence," was issued on May Page 6 of 10
13, '15. Appellant did not have actual knowledge of the written "Order
Sustaining Contest of indigence," until May 26. '15. Appellant believes that
under 10.5(b)(1)(A) and 20.1(j)(2) ofthe T.RA.P; that motion for review of order
sustaining contest of indigence, should've been filed by May 24th, '15. But,
appellant did not have actual knowledge of the written "Order Sustaining Contest
of indigence," until May 26. '15. Applying 10.5(b)(1)(A) and 20.1(j)(2) ofthe
T.R.A.P; the motion for review of order sustaining contest of indigence, should be
filed by June 08th, "15. If attainment of actual knowledge is not the criteria to use
in determining the last day for filing motion for review of order sustaining contest
of indigence, in the Court of Appeals, appellant beeches this court of appeals to
admit "late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for review of order sustaining
contest of indigence. (And, accede to an informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) motion to
suspend the rules; and to allow an extension of time (20 days) to file informal brief
on this motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence;
pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law)).
IV Grounds
Appellant contends that this written "Order Sustaining Contest of
indigence." issued on May 13, *15 should be over ruled on the grounds of
"Abuse of Discretion". Because, the lower court admitted direct positive Page 7 of 10
documentary evidence establishing a prima facie right to free "record." i.e.
Appellant submitted and the court admitted documents showing that
appellant was receiving food stamps/S.N.A.P. benefits; and supplemental
security income/S.S.1. (based on disability). And, this evidence was
uncontroverted, the opposing party offered no evidence to rebut the prima
facie showing that was established. As best appellant can determine trial court
chose simply to disbelieve direct, positive evidence that established the prima
facie case for appellant's right to free "record." Which, in the humble opinion
of appellant, should be sufficient grounds to overrule the decision of the trial
court for "Abuse of Discretion".
934 S.W.2d 349
Supreme Court of Texas.
GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., Larry Findley, Fermin Carlos Garza, David
Gonzales, Russell McNorton, and Henry Villarreal, Relators,
v.
THE HONORABLE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
No. 96-0101. Page 8 of 10
Argued April 18,1996.Decided Nov. 15,1996.
Under provision of Rules of Appellate Procedure governing appeals by indigent
parties, burden of proof at hearing on contest to affidavit of inability to pay
costs rests on appellant to sustain allegations in affidavit, and appellant must
prove that she could not pay costs of appeal if really wanted to and made good
faith effort to do so; however, standard is met by proof that appellant depends
on public assistance. Rules App. Proc, Rule 40(a)(3)(D).
Evidence was uncontroverted that plaintiff was receiving governmental
assistance to which she was legally entitled. Rules App.Proc, Rule 40(a)(3)(D).
To overcome prima facie showing, opposing party must offer evidence to rebut
what has been established, and trial court is not free simply to disbelieve direct,
positive evidence that establishes prima facie case.
Opposing parties bear burden of introducing some evidence that witness is not
dependent on food stamps or that other funds are available, and trier of fact is
not permitted to disregard entirely word of witness that he is indigent. Rules
App.Proc, Rule 40(a)(3)(D) Page 9 of 10
This standard is consistent with the standard for an affidavit of inability to
secure costs in the trial court. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 145. Rule 145 defines a "party
who is unable to afford costs" as "a person who is presently receiving a
governmental entitlement based on indigence or any other person who has no
ability to pay costs."
Appellant was allowed to proceed pro se in the trial court under (essentially, the
same) affidavit of indigence.
V Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED appellant prays that this Court:
1. Reverse Associate judge Ruiz's May 13th, '15 order/ruling sustaining the contest
of indigence on grounds of "Abuse of Discretion".
VI Alternative Prayer
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED appellant prays alternatively, that this
Court of Appeals:
1. Overrule the trial court's May 13th,'15 order/ruling sustaining the contest of
indigence; on grounds of "Abuse ofDiscretion", Page 10 of 10
2. Accede to an informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) Motion to Suspend the Rules; and admit
"late filing" of this motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of
indigence; and allow an extension oftime (20 days) to file informal brief on this
motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence; pursuant
to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law.
3. Grant appellant any further reliefto which appellant may be entitled in law and
in equity.
; Wtfotft—- Mr\ Newell M. Evans - Pro se 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. # 281-341-6636 E-mail: The_Masterprogrammer@yahoo.com Page 1 of 2
Cause #11-DCV-187877
NEWELL M. EVANS IN THE DISTRIST COURT
VS 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THEODORE P. FULLER FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
NEWELL M.EVANS In the 14th COURT of APPEALS
« o. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
ORDER
ON this, the day of 20 , came on to be
considered appellant's motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of
indigence. (Alternatively, motion to extend time for review of order sustaining
contest of indigence; containing: Informal Motion For Suspension of Rules; Page 2 of 2
Informal motion to extend time for review oforder sustaining contest of
indigence); in the above-styled and numbered cause; and the Court, being satisfied that due notice offiling ofsuch motion has been given, and after
considering the pleadings, and arguments of counsel, is of the opinion that such motion should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED, that the appellant's motion for reconsideration of order sustaining
contest of indigence. In the above-styled and numbered cause, be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatorder sustaining contest ofindigence filed on May 13,
'15, by Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz, is reversed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatthe Court's reporter/recorder provide thel4th Court
of Appeals -Houston, Texas, the "appellate record" requested by appellant;
without cost.
Judge Presiding Date __
Entered—Clerk of the 240th Judicial District Court, fort Bend County
Texas Page 1 of 2
NEWELL M. EVANS IN THE DISTRIST COURT ) VS ( 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THEODORE P. FULLER ( FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AT LAST KNOWN ADDRESS
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) -
Appellant's (1) cover letter; (2) motion for reconsideration of order sustaining
contest of indigence; (3) Informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) motion to suspend the rules; and
to allow an extension of time (20 days) to file informal brief on this motion to Page 2 of 2
extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence; pursuant to the
trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law; (4) Certificate of
Service at Last Known Address. Has been delivered to defendant, and all opposing
counsel and other parties who have made an appearance in this cause, at their
last known address.
By personal service to:
Theodore P. Fuller % Cedillo, Paul Jr. Attorney at Law 2319 Avenue H Rosenberg, Texas. 77471 Dated this the 1 - 3 day of June 2015.
By E-mail to: Elizabeth.Wittu@fortbendcountytx.gov By personal service at: 240th Judicial District Court % (Judge Thomas R. Culver, III) Court Coordinator - becky.fisher@fortbendcountvtx.gov Office: Fort Bend County Justice Center 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle Courtroom: Room 3E
Respectfully,
[r.Jewell M. Ev^j^rro se 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. #281-341-6636 E-mail: The_Masterprogrammer@yahoo.com Page 1 of 2
NEWELL M. EVANS IN THE DISTRIST COURT ) VS ( 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THEODORE P. FULLER ( FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
NEWELL M.EVANS ) In the 14th COURT of APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDEGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
From: Newell M. Evans 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. # 281-341-6636
Re: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST of INDIGENCE.
Dear Ms. Elloitt
How are you? I pray that you and yours are fine. We are Ok. Page 2 of 2
I'm submitting two (2) complete copies of appellant Neweli M. Evans' motion for* reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence. One for the Court; and one to be returned to me.
Please find for filing among these papers: (1) appellant Newell M. Evans' motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence. (2) Order; (3) Certificate of Service at Last Known Address.
Please stamp my copy of this appellant's motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence and return it to me. Please, immediately send original to the Court. ASAP.
Thanks in advance for your customary assistance with this matter.
Ir. Neweli M«tEvans^frose 206 Comns Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. # 281-341-6636 The_Masterprogrammer@yahoo.com Page 1 of 10
Cause # 11-DCV-187877
NEWELL M. EVANS ( IN THE DISTRIST COURT ) VS ( 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THEODORE P. FULLER FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
To the Honorable Judge Thomas R. Culver III, and to the Honorable Judges ofthe 14th Court of Appeals:
Now comes Newell M Evans, here-in-after, referred to as appellant; moving
this District CourtofJudge Thomas R. Culver III (240th Judicial District, Fort
Bend County); and to the Honorable Judges ofthe 14th Court of Appeals:
for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence filed on May 13,' 15,
by Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz. Alternatively, appellant moves this Court of Page 2 of 10
Appeals to admit "late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for review of order
sustaining contest of indigence. (And, accede to an informal (T.R.A. P. # 2)
Motion to Suspend the Rules; and to allow an Extension ofTime (20 days) to File
Informal Brief on this Motion to Extend Time for Review of Order Sustaining
Contest of Indigence (pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and
conclusions of law); wherein, here-in-after, Theodore P. Fuller, is appellee. In
support of this motion reconsideration of order sustaining contest of indigence filed
on May 13, '15, by Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz. (And, alternatively, appellant
moves this Court of Appeals to admit "late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for
review of order sustaining contest of indigence (and, accede to an informal (T.R.A.
P. # 2) Motion to Suspend the Rules; and to allow an Extension of Time (20 days)
to File Informal Briefon this Motion to Extend Time for Review of Order
Sustaining Contest ofIndigence (pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of
facts and conclusions of law)); appellant would show unto the Court(s) as follows.
I PRELIMINARY MATTERS
The relevant pleadings and exhibits submitted with/included in "First
Amended of Notice of Intention to Appeal Denial of Motion for
Reinstatement" (Filed with the Clerk of 14th Court of Appeals - Houston,
Texas, on Dec. 29, 414); and Request for an Extension of Time to File
Accelerated Appeal of Denial of Motion for Reinstatement (Filed with the Page 3 of 10
Clerk of 14th Court of Appeals - Houston, Texas, on Mar. 30, *15); are hereby
No extensions oftime have previously been granted in this "Motion for
Reconsideration; or alternative motion to Extend Time for Review of Order
Sustaining Contest ofIndigence."
This is not an appeal in a termination of parental right case; nor is it an appeal in
Appellant believes that under 10.5(b)(1)(A) and 20.1(j)(2) ofthe T.RA.P; that
motion for review of order, sustaining contest of indigence, should've been filed by
May 24th, '15. But, appellant did not have actual knowledge of the "Written Order
Sustaining Contest of indigence," until May 26. '15. Applying 10.5(b)(1)(A) and
20.1(j)(2) of the T.RA.P; the motion for review of order sustaining contest of
Appellant in this motion to extend time for review oforder sustaining contest of
indigence; by informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) motion to suspend the rules; beeches this
14th Court of Appeals to allow an extension oftime (20 days) to file informal brief Page 4 of 10
on this motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence;
pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law.
Appellant does not believe a conference with any opposing party should be
required; as prerequisite to filing the motion for reconsideration/review.
This contest of indigence was tried to Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz; under District
Court Judge Thomas R. Culver III (240th Judicial District, Fort Bend County).
As Associate Judge, Pedro Ruiz, takes pains to explain to litigants that his rulings
are "appealable," to his immediate supervisor; 240th Judicial District Court Judge
So, appellant files this motion for reconsideration with that in mind. Appellant
understands that under 20.1(j)(l) and (2) ofthe T.R.A.P; that "review," of order
sustaining contest of indigence, should be by motion to the court of appeals; within
10 days after the order sustaining the contest is signed, or within 10
days after the notice of appeal is filed, whichever is later. Page 5 of 10
But, as stated, Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz, takes pains to explain to litigants that
his rulings are "appealable," to his immediate supervisor; 240th Judicial District
Consequently, appellant pray that this 14th Court of Appeals acknowledge receipt
of appellant's "Motion for Review," of Associate judge Ruiz's May 13th, '15 order
sustaining the contest of indigence. Then abate said motion; pending outcome of
appellant's motion for reconsideration of Associate judge Ruiz's May 13th, '15
In the event that appellant's motion for reconsideration is "summarily denied,"
appellant's prays that the trial court would at least provide the appellate court with
findings of fact, and conclusions of law; pursuant to Associate judge, Ruiz's May
1. This contest of indigence was tried to Associate Judge, Pedro Ruiz; under
District Court Judge, Thomas R. Culver HI (240th Judicial District, Fort Bend
County). After a continuance or two, the final hearing was held on May 07,
'15. The written "Order Sustaining Contest of indigence," was issued on May Page 6 of 10
13, '15. Appellant did not have actual knowledge of the written "Order
Sustaining Contest of indigence," until May 26. '15. Appellant believes that
under 10.5(b)(1)(A) and 20.1(j)(2) ofthe T.R.A.P; that motion for review of order
sustaining contestof indigence, should've been filed by May 24th, '15. But,
appellant did not have actual knowledge of the written "Order Sustaining Contest
of indigence," until May 26. '15. Applying 10.5(b)(1)(A) and 20.1(j)(2) ofthe
T.RA.P; the motion for review of order sustaining contest of indigence, should be
filed by June 08th, "15. If attainment of actual knowledge is not the criteria to use
in determining the last day for filing motion for review of order sustaining contest
of indigence, in the Court of Appeals, appellant beeches this court of appeals to
admit "late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for review of order sustaining
contest of indigence. (And, accede to an informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) motion to
suspend the rules; and to allow an extension of time (20 days) to file informal brief
on this motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence;
pursuant to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law)).
Appellant contends that this written "Order Sustaining Contest of
indigence," issued on May 13, '15 should be over ruled on the grounds of
"Abuse of Discretion". Because, the lower court admitted direct positive Page 7 of 10
documentary evidence establishing a prima facie right to free "record." i.e.
Appellant submitted and the court admitted documents showing that
appellant was receiving food stamps/S.N.A.P. benefits; and supplemental
security income/S.S.I, (based on disability). And, this evidence was
uncontroverted, the opposing party offered no evidence to rebut the prima
facie showing that was established. As best appellant can determine trial court
chose simply to disbelieve direct, positive evidence that established the prima
facie case for appellant's right to free "record." Which, in the humble opinion
of appellant, should be sufficient grounds to overrule the decision of the trial
GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC., Larry Findley, Fermin Carlos Garza, David
Under provision of Rules of Appellate Procedure governing appeals by indigent
parties, burden of proof at hearing on contest to affidavit of inability to pay
costs rests on appellant to sustain allegations in affidavit, and appellant must
prove that she could not pay costs of appeal if really wanted to and made good
faith effort to do so; however, standard is met by proof that appellant depends
Evidence was uncontroverted that plaintiff was receiving governmental
assistance to which she was legally entitled. Rules App.Proc, Rule 40(a)(3)(D).
To overcome prima facie showing, opposing party must offer evidence to rebut
what has been established, and trial court is not free simply to disbelieve direct,
Opposing parties bear burden of introducing some evidence that witness is not
dependent on food stamps or that other funds are available, and trier of fact is
not permitted to disregard entirely word of witness that he is indigent. Rules
This standard is consistent with the standard for an affidavit of inability to
secure costs in the trial court. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 145. Rule 145 defines a "party
who is unable to afford costs" as "a person who is presently receiving a
governmental entitlement based on indigence or any other person who has no
Appellant was allowed to proceed pro se in the trial court under (essentially, the
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED appellant prays that this Court:
1. Reverse Associate judge Ruiz's May 13th, '15 order/ruling sustaining the contest
of indigence on grounds of "Abuse ofDiscretion".
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED appellant prays alternatively, that this
1. Overrule thetrial court'sMay 13th,'15 order/ruling sustaining the contest of
indigence; on grounds of "Abuse of Discretion". Page 10 of 10
2. Accede to an informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) Motion to Suspend the Rules; and admit
"late filing" ofthis motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of
indigence; and allow an extension oftime (20 days) to file informal brief on this
motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence; pursuant
to the trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law.
3. Grant appellant any further relief to which appellant may be entitled in law and
.jfiqiAi—. fell M. 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. #281-341-6636 E-mail: The_Masterprogrammer@yahoo.com Page lof 2
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
considered appellant's motion for reconsideration of order sustaining contest of
indigence. (Alternatively, motion to extend time for review of order sustaining
contest of indigence; containing: Informal Motion For Suspension of Rules; Page 2 of 2
Informal motion to extend time for review of order sustaining contest of
indigence); in the above-styled and numbered cause; and the Court, being
satisfied that due notice of filing of such motion has been given, and after
considering the pleadings, and arguments of counsel, is of the opinion that such
motion should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED, that the appellant's motion for reconsideration of order sustaining
contest of indigence. In the above-styled and numbered cause, be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that order sustaining contest of indigence filed on May 13,
'15, by Associate Judge Pedro Ruiz, is reversed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's reporter/recorder provide thel4th Court
of Appeals -Houston, Texas, the "appellate record" requested by appellant;
Judge Presiding Date
Entered—Clerk of the 240th Judicial District Court,fort Bend County
NEWELL M. EVANS IN THE DISTRIST COURT ) VS ( 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THEODORE P. FULLER ( FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE Alternatively MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR REVIEW OF ORDER SUSTAINING CONTEST OF INDIGENCE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document(s) -
Appellant's (1) cover letter; (2) motion for reconsideration of order sustaining
contest of indigence; (3) Informal (T.R.A. P. # 2) motion to suspend the rules; and
to allow an extension of time (20 days) to file informal brief on this motion to Page 2 of 2
extend time for review of order sustaining contest of indigence; pursuant to the
trial courts issuance of findings of facts and conclusions of law; (4) Certificate of
Service at Last Known Address. Has been delivered to defendant, and all opposing
counsel and other parties who have made an appearance in this cause, at their
Theodore P. Fuller % Cedillo, Paul Jr. Attorney at Law 2319 AvenueH Rosenberg, Texas. 77471 Dated this the 1 - 3 day of June 2015.
By E-mail to: Elizabeth.Wittu@fortbendcountytx.gov By personal service at: 240th Judicial District Court % (Judge Thomas R. Culver, III) Court Coordinator-becky.fisher@fortbendcountvtx.gov Office: Fort Bend County Justice Center 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle Courtroom: Room 3E
)/&t&^ MrNNeweliM. Evats^rrose 206 Collins Rd. Richmond, TX. 77469 Ph. #281-341-6636 E-mail: The_Masterprogrammer@yahoo.com