Carey Johnson v. Jon P Herrera Appeal from 311th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued February 20, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00407-CV ——————————— CAREY LYNN JOHNSON, Appellant V. JON HERRERA, Appellee On Appeal from the 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2018-77006 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Carey Lynn Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 14, 2024 “Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship.” Appellant has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief). The record in this appeal was completed on October 2, 2024, making appellant’s brief due no later than November 1, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On October 29, 2024, appellant filed her first motion to extend the deadline for filing her brief. The Court granted appellant’s motion, extending the deadline to file her brief to December 2, 2024. Appellant failed to timely file a brief, but on December 2, 2024, she filed her second motion to extend the deadline for filing her brief. In her second motion, appellant requested that the deadline for filing her brief be extended to December 7, 2024. The Court granted appellant’s motion, but on December 9, 2024, appellant filed her third motion to extend the deadline for filing her brief, requesting that the deadline be extended to December 16, 2024. The Court granted appellant’s motion over the opposition of appellee, Jon Herrera. Appellant failed to file her brief by the extended deadline. Accordingly, on January 16, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the time for filing a brief had expired and the appeal was subject to dismissal unless a brief, along with a motion to extend time to file a brief, was filed within ten days of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of appeal for failure to comply with notice from Clerk of Court). Despite the notice that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. 2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Morgan. 3
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.
