Richard James Johnson v. Judge Gerald A. Goodwin, et alAppeal from 159th District Court of Angelina County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-13-00263-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 159TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE GERALD A. GOODWIN, ET AL, APPELLEES § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This pro se in forma pauperis appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The judgment in this case was signed on August 6, 2013. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal that failed to contain the information required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e), i.e., a certificate of service showing service on all parties to the trial court's judgment. On August 22, 2013, Appellant was notified pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.1 that the notice of appeal was defective for failure to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e). He was further notified that unless he filed an amended notice of appeal on or before September 23, 2013, the appeal would be referred to the court for dismissal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The deadline for filing an amended notice of appeal has passed, and Appellant has not corrected his defective notice of appeal. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellant s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., August 22, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On August 22, 2013, this court sent a notice informing Appellant that he should file a docketing statement within ten days if he had not already done so. Appellant did not file the docketing statement. Accordingly, on September 12, 2013, this court issued another notice advising Appellant that the docketing statement was past due. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement was filed on or before September 23, 2013, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The time for filing the docketing statement has expired, and Appellant has not complied with the court s request. Because Appellant has failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5, 25.1(e), and 32.1, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); Feist v. Berg, No. 12-0400004-CV, 2004 WL 252785, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.); Feist v. Hubert, No. 12-03-00442-CV, 2004 WL 252285, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 11, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Opinion delivered September 30, 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) 2 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 NO. 12-13-00263-CV RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON, Appellant V. JUDGE GERALD A. GOODWIN, ET AL, Appellees Appeal from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV-43285-10-07) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5, 25.1(e), and 32.1; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
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.
