Michael A. Kennedy v. Anderson County, Texas and City of Palestine ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     NO. 12-20-00100-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    MICHAEL A. KENNEDY,                                 §      APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
    APPELLANT
    V.                                                  §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND
    CITY OF PALESTINE,                                  §      ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
    APPELLEES
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate
    rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified
    time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
    A party who is not excused by statute or the appellate rules from paying costs must pay--
    at the time an item is presented for filing--whatever fees are required by statute or Texas Supreme
    Court order. TEX. R. APP. P. 5. An appellate court may enforce Rule 5 by any order that is just.
    Id. If unable
    to pay the requisite filing fee, an inmate must file a statement of inability to pay costs,
    and a separate affidavit or declaration of previous filings that details all previous pro se actions
    and contains a certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement. See TEX. R. CIV. PRAC. &
    REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017). An inmate must be afforded an opportunity
    to cure a filing defect before dismissal of the appeal. Brown v. Jones, 
    494 S.W.3d 727
    , 728 (Tex.
    2016); Ex parte N.C., 
    486 S.W.3d 560
    (Tex. 2016); McLean v. Livingston, 
    486 S.W.3d 561
    , 564
    (Tex. 2016). After giving ten days’ notice, an appellate court may dismiss an appeal because the
    appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from
    the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. 1 TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
    On April 2, 2020, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant, Michael Kennedy, an inmate
    acting pro se, that the filing fee in this appeal is due.1 Appellant was informed that failure to remit
    the filing fee on or before April 13, would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including
    dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Also on April 2, the
    Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that an affidavit of previous filings and a current, certified
    copy of his inmate trust account statement, is due. Appellant was informed that failure to remit a
    statement of previous filings and a current, certified copy of his inmate trust account statement
    before April 13 would result in the appeal being referred to the Court for dismissal without further
    notice. See
    id. The April
    13 deadline expired and Appellant has not paid the filing fee or filed a declaration
    of inability to pay costs, a separate affidavit or declaration relating to previous filings, and a
    current, certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. Because, after notice and an
    opportunity to cure, Appellant has not complied with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court
    order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time, the
    appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); see also Ex parte Alvarado, No. 13-16-00514-
    CV, 
    2016 WL 6520179
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 3, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
    Opinion delivered April 22, 2020.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
    1 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable
    rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by
    counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 
    2017 WL 2665180
    , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler
    June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
    2
    COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    JUDGMENT
    APRIL 22, 2020
    NO. 12-20-00100-CV
    MICHAEL A. KENNEDY,
    Appellant
    V.
    ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS AND CITY OF PALESTINE,
    Appellees
    Appeal from the 369th District Court
    of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV18-592-369)
    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; and that this decision be certified to the court below
    for observance.
    By per curiam opinion.
    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-20-00100-CV

Filed Date: 4/22/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2020