Valerie Monic Minnard v. the Park at Sutton Hill

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 26, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00083-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued November 26, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00083-CV ——————————— VALERIE MONIC MINNARD, Appellant V. THE PARK AT SUTTON HILL, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1214966

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, who is proceeding pro se, filed an appellant’s brief on October 10,

2024. The brief failed to comply with the briefing requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. By order issued on October 17,

2024, the Court struck this brief and ordered appellant to file a corrected brief. The order specified the deficiencies and ordered a corrected brief to be filed within 30

days and warned that if appellant failed to comply with the order, the appeal might

be dismissed. See id. 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f); see also Pathan v. Barboza, No. 01-

23-00783-CV, 2024 WL 1774220, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25,

2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). On November 18, 2024, appellant filed a corrected brief,

but this brief fails to comply with this Court’s October 17, 2024 order.

An appellate brief acquaints the court with issues and argument that enables

the court to decide the case. See Schied v. Merritt, No. 01-15-00466-CV, 2016 WL

3751619, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide the requirements for content and

organization of an appellant’s brief and require, among other things, for citation to

the record and to authorities. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1; Tyurin v. Hirsch &

Westheimer, P.C., No. 01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). When a brief fails to present

clear and concise argument as well as appropriate citations to authorities, “the

appellate court is not responsible for doing the legal research that might support a

party’s contentions.” Irisson v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, No. 13-19-00239-CV, 2020

WL 6343336, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburgh Oct. 29, 2020, no pet.)

(mem. op.). Moreover, a court is unable to discharge its responsibility of reviewing

the appeal and deciding disposition of the appeal when the court is not provided with

2 proper briefing. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893,

895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Although a party has a right to represent

herself on appeal, pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys

and must comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Garrett v. Lee,

No. 01-21-00498-CV, 2021 WL 5702177, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

Dec. 2, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Appellant was given an opportunity to file a corrected brief in compliance

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, but she failed to do so. See Pathan,

2024 WL 1774220, at *3. Appellant’s corrected brief contains no citation to the

record in her statement of facts and entirely lacks any argument with citations to the

record and to authority.

“Where, as here, an appellant files an appellant’s brief that does not comply

with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and then files a corrected brief or

amended brief that also does not comply, ‘the [appellate] court may strike the brief,

prohibit the [appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if the [appellant] had

failed to file a brief.’” Id. (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a)).

Accordingly, we strike appellant’s corrected brief, and we dismiss the appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as

moot.

3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.