William Espinoza Pena v. David W. McDowell, Individually and in His Official Capacity

Court of Appeals of Texas

William Espinoza Pena v. David W. McDowell, Individually and in His Official Capacity

DecidedMay 11, 2005

Docket12-05-00116-CV

StatusPublished

This text of William Espinoza Pena v. David W. McDowell, Individually and in His Official Capacity (William Espinoza Pena v. David W. McDowell, Individually and in His Official Capacity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Espinoza Pena v. David W. McDowell, Individually and in His Official Capacity, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

NO. 12-05-00116-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIAM ESPINOZA PENA, § APPEAL FROM THE 369TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

DAVID W. MCDOWELL, INDIVIDUALLY

AND IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL., § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in the instant case was signed on January 5, 2005. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and, thereafter, on April 7, 2005, Appellant filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Rule 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court’s judgment.

On April 7, 2005, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rule 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before May 9, 2005, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

To date, Appellant has neither complied with nor responded to our notice. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to correct his defective notice of appeal, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, 12-04-00004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.–Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied); Feist v. Hubert, 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.–Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied).

Opinion delivered May 11, 2005.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(PUBLISH)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI