Daniel Escatiola v. E.C. Williams ( 2007 )

Opinion filed June 28, 2007

Opinion filed June 28, 2007

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-07-00129-CV

                                                    __________

                                    DANIEL ESCATIOLA, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                   E.C. WILLIAMS ET AL, Appellees

                                           On Appeal from the 1-A District Court

                                                            Tyler County, Texas

                                                   Trial Court Cause No. 17,310

                                             M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On January 12, 2007, the trial court signed an order dismissing appellant’s pro se suit. A motion for new trial was not filed. On March 28, 2007, appellant filed a notice of appeal.  On June 11, 2007, the clerk of this court wrote the parties advising them that it appeared appellant had not timely perfected an appeal and requesting that appellant respond on or before June 26, 2007, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

Appellant has responded by filing the following pro se motions: “motion for new trial,” “motion for request for notice,” “motion for pro se for attorney counsel,” “motion for review,” “motion to reinstate under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165(a),” “motion to modify the judgment,” and “motion suspension of enforcement of judgment and motion amount of bond deposit or security.”  While appellant expresses his frustration with the trial court and with the judicial system in these motions, appellant fails to establish how he has invoked the jurisdiction of this court.  All of appellant’s arguments in these five motions plus the additional pro se motions filed prior to our June 11 letter have been considered, and each is overruled.  All of appellant’s motions are overruled.

Appellant has not timely perfected an appeal pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 25.1, 26.1.  Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

June 28, 2007

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.