Joe L. Morris v. Speedway Erection Service Company--Appeal from 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-04-00109-CV
Joe L. MORRIS,
Appellant
v.
SPEEDWAY ERECTION SERVICE COMPANY,
Appellee
From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2002-CI-10292
Honorable Frank Montalvo, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Paul W. Green, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 5, 2004

DISMISSED

The trial court signed a summary judgment in the underlying cause on April 15, 2003. On May 16, 2003, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. (1) Although appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, appellant failed to file a copy of the notice of appeal or a docketing statement in this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(e); 4th Tex. App. (San Antonio) Loc. R. 5. On February 17, 2004, appellee filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. The motion is the first documentation this court received with regard to this appeal.

On March 8, 2004, we ordered appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant responded that he is representing himself pro se but wants to pursue his appeal. Although we recognize the difficulties appellant faces in representing himself, we noted that a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Shull v. United Parcel Service, 4 S.W.3d 46, 52-53 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). Accordingly, we ordered that appellant file a copy of his notice of appeal and a docketing statement in this court no later than April 13, 2004. We also ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the clerk's fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk's fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee. We noted that appellant would be entitled to appeal without paying the clerk's fee only if he filed an affidavit of indigency in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c); Ford v. Whitehead, 2 S.W.3d 304, 306 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1999, no pet.). We further noted that there are no exceptions to this requirement; therefore, if appellant did not timely file an affidavit of indigency with the trial court, appellant would be required to pay the clerk's fee in order to proceed with this appeal. We ordered that if appellant failed to respond by providing the required proof within the time provided, this appeal would be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(c).

Appellant has not responded to our order. This appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

1. The envelope containing the notice of appeal was post-marked on May 15, 2003. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b).