Preston Briggs v. J. Clopp, et al.--Appeal from 87th District Court of Freestone County

Annotate this Case
Briggs v. Clopp /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-95-057-CV

 

PRESTON BRIGGS,

Appellant

v.

 

J. CLOPP, ET AL.,

Appellees

 

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 95-072-B

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Preston Briggs appealed from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis petition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Briggs filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 1995, and the transcript was filed in this court on March 17. Although his brief was due on April 17, no appellant's brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

Id. 74(l)(1).

More than thirty days have passed since Briggs' brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter on May 19. See id. 60(a)(2), 83. He responded to our letter, claiming that the court dismissed his claim because he used the unsworn declarations form provided by the legislature for use by inmates. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 132.003 (Vernon Supp. 1995). However, this claim does not show grounds for continuing the appeal, nor is it a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed June 7, 1995

Do not publish

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.