Saahir Jehaad Abdallah v. Jim Holmes, et al. Appeal from 237th District Court of Lubbock County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00221-CV SAAHIR JEHAAD ABDALLAH, APPELLANT V. JIM HOLMES, ET AL., APPELLEE On Appeal from the 237th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-511,655, Honorable Leslie Hatch, Presiding July 14, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Saahir Jehaad Abdahllah attempts to appeal a court order striking his petition and dismissing the lawsuit he filed against appellees. The order was signed on April 21, 2015. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the district clerk on June 5, 2015. We dismiss this appeal because of appellant’s failure to comply with the Court’s order requiring a written explanation for his late notice of appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on May 21, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2015, but did not file a motion requesting an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, the Court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline expires, the appellant files the notice of appeal along with a motion requesting an extension that reasonably explains the need for an extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 & 10.5(b). Although a motion for extension is implied when the appellant tenders a notice of appeal within 15 days after the notice deadline, it is still necessary for the appellant to reasonably explain the need for an extension. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997); Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998). Because appellant filed a notice of appeal within 15 days after the deadline, a motion for extension was implied. However, the Court ordered appellant to file a written response by June 26, 2015 explaining why the notice of appeal was filed late. The Court also informed appellant that the failure to comply with the Court’s directive would result in dismissal of the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Although appellant has filed various motions, appellant did not respond to the Court’s directive for an explanation. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c) because appellant failed to comply with a court order requiring a response within a specified time. Of course, appellant has 15 days to file a motion for rehearing wherein he may comply with the Court’s previous directive for an explanation. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Per Curiam 2
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.
