Norman Madrid v. Maria Cecilia Limon Ledesma

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00060-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00060-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

NORMAN MADRID, Appellant,

v. MARIA CECILIA LIMON LEDESMA, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF CAMERON, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

On January 29, 2024, appellant filed a notice of appeal. The Clerk of the Court

notified appellant of an outstanding filing fee and that his notice of appeal did not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 25.1(d)(2, 5).

The Clerk of Court requested that appellant cure the defect. See id. R. 37.1. On March

12, 2024, the Clerk of Court notified appellant that he had not complied with this Court’s request to cure the defective notice and advised that dismissal may be warranted absent

further action. See id. R. 42.3.

On April 2, 2024, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file an amended

notice of appeal. We granted this motion, giving appellant until April 15, 2024, to file an

amended notice. On April 17, 2024, appellant filed a motion for leave to file an amended

notice and a corresponding amended notice of appeal. By letter dated April 22, 2024, we

notified appellant that his amended notice was still not in compliance with the rules of

appellate procedure. We advised that if proper notice was not filed in the trial court within

10 days, his appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 42.3. In this

letter, the Clerk of Court specifically informed appellant that “[p]ro se litigants are held to

the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all

applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85

(Tex. 1978).”

After consideration, this Court accepted appellant’s notice of appeal as curing the

prior defect. On May 13, 2024, the Clerk of Court notified the court reporter that a

reporter’s record had not been received. See id. R. 37.3(a)(1). On June 10, 2024, the

court reporter notified this court that he was awaiting payment to begin working on

transcripts, stating that “[w]hen payment is received, I will upload the completed transcript

immediately.”

On July 10, 2024, the Clerk of Court issued a letter to appellant informing him that

his brief was due on July 1, 2024. We notified him that his case could be dismissed within

ten days if he did not explain his failure to file a brief. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1). On July 23,

2024, appellant filed a letter stating that he missed the deadline to file because he was

2 out of the country. We construed this letter as appellant’s first motion for extension of time

and informed him that he must pay a filing fee and submit an amended motion in

compliance with the rules of appellate procedure within ten days. See id. R 9.1(b), 9.5(e),

10.1(a)(5), 10.5(b)(1)(A), 10.5(b)(1)(B), and 10.5(b)(1)(D).

On August 13, 2024, appellant filed another letter with this Court requesting

additional time to file his brief. On August 14, 2024, we informed appellant that his motion

for extension of time was still not in compliance.

Appellant has failed to file a proper amended motion for extension of time, as

requested, or to take other appropriate action within the time specified. He has failed to

file his appellant’s brief, which was due on July 1, 2024. Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with procedural requirements

and notices from the Clerk of the Court. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c).

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 29th day of August, 2024.