Sheikh M. Rafiq v. Nueva Vida Apartments Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18, 2017. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-16-00152-CV ____________ SHEIKH M. RAFIQ, Appellant V. NUEVA VIDA APARTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1057438 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, pro se, filed a brief that did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with Rule 38. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i). Appellee filed a brief, arguing that appellant had waived any error due to inadequate briefing. See, e.g., Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (reaffirming that “error may be waived by inadequate briefing”). We struck appellant’s brief and ordered appellant to file a brief complying with Rule 38 by March 14, 2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. We informed appellant that if he filed another noncompliant brief or failed to file a brief, the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a), 38.8(a)(1). On March 20, appellant filed a “response” that fails generally to comply with Rule 38. Appellant contends, “I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME IN ANY RESPONSE and will focus, in collaboration with special U.S. Attorney, in Federal courts.” [sic] Pro se litigants like appellant are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. See, e.g., Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Reule v. M & T Mortg., 483 S.W.3d 600, 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied). Although we liberally construe briefs, appellant has not substantially complied with the briefing rules. See Harkins v. Dever Nursing Home, 999 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (citing Tex. R. App. 38.9)). Because appellant has not filed an amended brief in compliance with Rule 38, we proceed as if appellant has failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. 38.9. Under these circumstances, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 38.8(a)(1); Harkins, 999 S.W.2d at 573. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise.
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.
