Steve Washington v. STR Arlington, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 12, 2023
• Docket: 01-23-00754-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 12, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00754-CV ——————————— STEVE WASHINGTON, Appellant V. STR ARLINGTON, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas1 Trial Court Case No. 2023-001785-1

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred this appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 23–9079 (Tex. Sept. 26, 2023); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases); TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Steve Washington, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from

the trial court’s August 17, 2023 final judgment. Appellee, STR Arlington, LLC,

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, asserting that appellant

had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the

clerk’s record.

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Appellant has neither established indigence for purposes of costs nor paid or

made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX.

R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a), 37.3(b). On October 17, 2023, appellant was

notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if he 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 November 16, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant

did not adequately respond to the Court’s notice.

On November 22, 2023, appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal. In the

motion, appellee notes that appellant had not responded to the Clerk of this Court’s

October 17, 2023 notice and “[p]ayment for the clerk’s record ha[d] not been made

nor arranged.” Further, more than ten days have passed since appellee’s motion to

dismiss was filed, and appellant has not responded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

2 Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions

are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.