Tamieka Singh v. Helda H. Shaghaghi --Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 2 of Harris County (original memorandum per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Opinion issued July 12, 2012. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00996-CV ____________ TAMIEKA SINGH, Appellant V. HELDA H. SHAGHAGHI, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1002508 MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 16, 2011, appellant Tamieka Singh filed an affidavit of indigence with the trial court clerk. Although appellant has not filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk assigned this appeal to this Court, based upon the affidavit of indigence. The filing of a notice of appeal by any party invokes the appellate court s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). A court of appeals has jurisdiction over any appeal where the appellant files an instrument that was filed in a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate court jurisdiction. Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994); Grand Praire Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991). If the appellant timely files a document in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court s jurisdiction, the court of appeals, on appellant s motion, must allow the appellant an opportunity to perfect the appeal by amending or refiling. See Grand Praire Indep. Sch. Dist., 813 S.W.2d at 500. Appellant has not filed a notice of appeal, but has filed an affidavit of indigence. An affidavit of indigence is not an instrument that is filed to invoke the appellate court s jurisdiction. In re R.B.M., 338 S.W.3d 755, 757 (Tex. App. Houston [14th] 2011, no pet.). The affidavit concerns the separate question of whether appellant must pay appellate costs in advance. Id.; see In re J.W., 52 S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an affidavit of indigence does not constitute a bona fide attempt to invoke this Court s jurisdiction. In re R.B.M., 338 S.W.3d at 757. 2 On March 29, 2012, we notified appellant that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by April 11, 2012, she filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.