Shaune E. Gross v. Nikki Demby, San Antonio Independent School District Board of Trustees and Toni Thompson

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00789-CV

Shaune E. GROSS,

Appellant

v.

Nikki DEMBY, San Antonio Independent School District Board of Trustees and Toni Thompson,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010-CI-05446 Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 13, 2011 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION In this case, appellant has filed two defective briefs. Appellant’s original brief did not identify the parties and counsel; and did not contain a table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, issues presented, a statement of facts, a summary of the argument, or any argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Accordingly, on February 28, 2011, this court issued an order pointing out the deficiencies and ordering appellant to file an amended brief that complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. Appellant filed an amended brief that is also

04-10-00789-CV

defective. Appellant’s amended brief contains a statement of facts that is not supported by record references. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g). Nor does the amended brief contain “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authority and to the record. Id. 38.1(i).

Substantial compliance with Rule 38 is sufficient. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. However, if Rule 38 has been flagrantly violated, this court may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. Id. 38.9(a). If another noncomplying brief is filed, this court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. Id. Pro se litigants, such as appellant, “are not exempt from the rules of procedure.” Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005). Because appellant’s amended brief fails to substantially comply with Rule 38, we will proceed as if appellant failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a).

If an appellant fails to timely file a brief, this court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, on our own motion, we DISMISS this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM