Rev. Ryan "Sasha" Gallagher v. Texas Attorney General (Ken Paxton), Texas Department of Public Safety, Wayne A. Mueller

Opinion

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed April 16, 2020

S In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00902-CV

REV. RYAN “SASHA” GALLAGHER, Appellant V.

TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL (KEN PAXTON), TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WAYNE A. MUELLER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02400

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Pro se appellant Reverend Ryan “Sasha” Gallagher appeals the trial court’s

order granting appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction. When appellant filed his brief on February 3, 2020, we determined it was deficient. By letter dated February 24, 2020, we notified appellant that his brief failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We provided appellant an opportunity to file an amended brief that complied with rule 38.1’s requirements within ten days and cautioned him that failure to comply might result in dismissal of

2

the appeal without further notice. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). Appellant did not file an amended brief.

Although civil litigants may represent themselves at trial and on appeal, pro se litigants must adhere to our rules of evidence and procedure, including the appellate rules of procedure. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Our appellate rules have specific requirements for briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38. Among other requirements, the rules require appellants to state concisely their complaints; provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument showing why their complaints are meritorious in fact and in law; cite and apply applicable law; and provide appropriate references to the record. See id. 38.1(f–i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. If an appellant fails to provide adequate briefing, we may dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.

Appellant’s brief does not include any citations to the record or recite any facts concerning the plea to the jurisdiction granted by the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). Appellant only recites facts—without any references to the record—related to his Motion for Writ of Injunction, in which appellant sought “an Injunction allowing marijuana to be grown and used in a Temple in Dallas County.” Additionally, appellant fails to cite any legal authority to support his legal assertions. See id. 38.1(i). Without adequate briefing, especially the lack of support by reference to the record and authorities, appellant is not entitled to judicial review. See id.

3

38.1(g), (i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96. Accordingly, because appellant was given an opportunity to file an amended brief correcting noted deficiencies but has failed to do so, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895–96.

/Robert D.Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

190902F.P05

4

S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

REV. RYAN “SASHA” On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial GALLAGHER, Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02400.

No. 05-19-00902-CV V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Nowell TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL participating. (KEN PAXTON), TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WAYNE A. MUELLER, Appellees

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL (KEN PAXTON), TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WAYNE A. MUELLER recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant REV. RYAN “SASHA” GALLAGHER.

Judgment entered April 16, 2020