Lambert Adumekwe v. Pebblewalk Apartments--Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2004

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-04-00842-CV

____________

LAMBERT ADUMEKWE, Appellant

V.

PEBBLEWALK APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 819,637

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant=s brief was received on October 11, 2004. The Court determined that appellant had not properly presented this cause in his brief on file. Appellant failed to comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 38 sets out the requirements for a brief, including sections with headings describing identity of parties and counsel, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, issues presented, statement of facts, summary of the argument, argument, prayer, and appendix. The brief tendered on October 11, 2004 contains a brief summary of the facts with no citation to the record, and a prayer. Thus, the brief did not comply with the rules.

On October 14, 2004, this court issued an order, requiring appellant to file a brief complying with Rule 38. In this order, we advised appellant that unless he filed a brief in compliance with the rules, on or before November 15, 2004, the court would dismiss the appeal.

On October 18, 2004, appellant filed a motion, asking that we consider the brief originally tendered. We denied this motion on November 11, 2004. On November 15, 2004, the date appellant=s brief was due to be filed, appellant filed a second motion to consider his brief tendered on October 11, 2004. The brief is attached to the motion.

Litigants who appear pro se must comply with the applicable procedural rules and are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978)(holding that litigants who represent themselves must comply with procedures established by rules notwithstanding the fact that they are not licensed attorneys); Steffan v. Steffan, 29 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).

Appellant has failed to comply with this court=s order of October 14, 2004. Appellant instead, has, re-tendered the brief which is not in compliance with Rule 38. If a party presents a brief that does not comply with the rules, the court may order it amended or redrawn. Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). If another brief that does not comply with the rules is filed, Athe court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief.@ Id. Where a party fails to file a brief, Rule 38.8 allows the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Id. at 38.9(a)(1); Harkins v. Dever Nursing Home, 999 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

Accordingly, we deny appellant=s motion to consider the non-conforming brief, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief, and we order the appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2004.

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Hudson, and Frost.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).