Charles Edmund Staggs v. Dennis Allan Davis, Joyce Guerra, Lakeshia Davis and Brenda Hough--Appeal from 12th District Court of Walker County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-12-00376-CV CHARLES EDMUND STAGGS, Appellant v. DENNIS ALLAN DAVIS, JOYCE GUERRA, LAKESHIA DAVIS AND BRENDA HOUGH, Appellees From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 26058 MEMORANDUM OPINION The Clerk of this Court notified Charles Edmund Staggs by letter dated October 18, 2012 that his appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared the order which was the subject of the attempted appeal was interlocutory and not appealable. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2012). The Clerk also warned Staggs that the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within 21 days from the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Staggs timely provided a response, but he does not show grounds for continuing this appeal. We have no jurisdiction of this appeal; accordingly, it is dismissed. Staggs request that the appeal be stayed until a dismissal of the underlying suit occurs is denied. Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP. P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208 (West Supp. 2012); § 51.941(a) (West 2005). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed. TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed November 8, 2012 [CV06] Staggs v. Davis Page 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.
