Stinal Atkins v. Bernard Schultz, Schultz & Schultz, Rodrigo Suarez Rodas, Joseph Benard Schultz and Baur, Bergstorm & Winter LLP

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 7, 2017
• Docket: 01-16-00864-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Stinal Atkins v. Bernard Schultz, Schultz & Schultz, Rodrigo Suarez Rodas, Joseph Benard Schultz and Baur, Bergstrom & Winter LLP

Appellate case number: 01-16-00864-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-31227

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

This Court was advised that appellant has not made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. In response to our notice that appellant needed to pay for the clerk’s record and appellate filing fees, appellant filed a motion for an extension to file his brief, a motion to proceed as a pauper, and a motion for extension of time to file a motion to proceed as a pauper. Within his motion, appellant states that the trial court previously granted appellant’s “motion to proceed in Forma Pauperis.” Absent a record containing documents concerning indigence, we are unable to determine if appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(f).

Accordingly, the District Clerk is directed to file, within 10 days of the date of this order, by preparing, certifying, and filing with this court a supplemental clerk’s record, containing appellant’s affidavit(s) of indigence, contest(s) to appellant’s affidavits of indigence, and any trial court orders ruling on contests to appellant’s affidavits of indigence. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Chief Justice Sherry Radack  Acting individually

Date: February 7, 2017