law-pro-se-appeals | appealing without a lawyer | pro se litigants | common errors in appeals |
PRO SE (PRO PER) LITIGANTS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
An “individual who is a party to civil litigation has the right to represent himself at trial and on appeal.”
Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). The
right of self-representation carries with it the responsibility to adhere to a court's rules of evidence and
procedure, including this Court's appellate rules of procedure if the party chooses to represent himself
at the appeal level. Id. We do not treat pro se litigants differently than a party who is represented by a
licensed attorney. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Bolling,
315 S.W.3d at 895.
The rules of appellate procedure require an appellant to state concisely the complaint presented for
review, provide an understandable, succinct, and clear argument why his complaint has merit in fact and
in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with appropriate
record references. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (h), & (i); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. If the appellant
fails to do so, we may inform him of the deficiencies and instruct him to file an amended brief that
complies with the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. When we do, we inform the
appellant the failure to file an amended brief that complies with the rules may result in dismissal of his
appeal without further notice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895-96.
PRO SE APPELLANTS
Appellant represents herself on appeal. Although we liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, we hold pro
se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and
rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.
3d 211, 211-12 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). To do otherwise would give pro se litigants an unfair advantage
over litigants represented by counsel. Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 185; In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d at 212.
The rules of appellate procedure require that the appellant's brief “contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). This Court
is not responsible for searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position, and we are not
responsible for performing the legal research that might support a party's contentions. Bolling v. Farmers Branch
Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Factual statements in a brief must be
supported by the record or they will not be considered on appeal. In re A.W.P., 200 S.W.3d 242, 244 (Tex. App.-
Dallas 2006, no pet.).
Litigants who represent themselves are held to the same standards as litigants represented by counsel. See
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). To hold otherwise, would give pro se
litigants an unfair advantage over litigants with an attorney. Id. at 185; Cooper v. Circle Ten Council Boy Scouts
of Am., 254 S.W.3d 689, 693 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). Accordingly, Muthukumar must comply with the
applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 185. The law is well established
that to present an issue for appeal, appellant's brief must contain, among other things, clear and concise
argument for appellant's contentions with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. See Tex. R. App. P.
38.1(i). When a party fails to brief a complaint adequately, he waives the issue on appeal. Devine v. Dallas Cnty.,
130 S.W.3d 512, 513-14 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint on appeal,
a party must also have made a timely complaint to the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1).
As a general proposition, an appellant also must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a
complained-of ruling or judgment on appeal. See Oliphant Fin. LLC v. Angiano, 295 S.W.3d 422, 423-24 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Britton v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.-
Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.)). If an appellant fails to do so, we must affirm the ruling or judgment. See
Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681; see also Prater v. State Farm Lloyds, 217 S.W.3d 739, 740-41 (Tex. App.-Dallas
2007, no pet.) (“When a separate and independent ground that supports a ruling is not challenged on appeal,
we must affirm the lower court's ruling.”). This proposition is based on the understanding that if an independent
ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment, but the appellant assigns no error to that
independent ground, we must accept the validity of that unchallenged independent ground. Britton, 95 S.W.3d at
681. As a result, any error in the grounds challenged on appeal is harmless because the unchallenged
independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment. Id.; cf. Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d
56, 58 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) (except in cases of fundamental error, we “may not reverse the judgment of a
trial court for a reason not raised in a point of error”).
We note at the outset that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with all
applicable and mandatory rules of pleading and procedure. De Mino v. Sheridan, 176 S.W.3d 359, 369 n. 17
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). To apply a different set of rules to pro se litigants would be to give
an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-
85 (Tex. 1978).
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure control the required contents and organization for an appellant's brief.
See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1. One of those requirements is that an appellant's brief must concisely state all issues or
points presented for review. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e). An issue presented in an appellant's brief is sufficient if it
directs the reviewing court's attention to the error about which the complaint is made. Canton- Carter v. Baylor
Coll. Of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). The appellant's brief must
also contain a clear and concise argument, including appropriate citations to authority and the record. See Tex.
R. App. P. 38.1(h). Failure to cite legal authority or provide substantive analysis of the legal issue presented
results in waiver of the complaint. Leyva v. Leyva, 960 S.W.2d 732, 734 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1997, no writ).
Similarly, failure to provide citations to the record also results in waiver of the issue on appeal. See Tex. R. App.
P. 38.1(i); see also Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 284 (Tex. 1994) (appellate
court has discretion to waive error due to inadequate briefing). It is appellant's burden to discuss her assertions
of error. We have no duty - or even right - to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to
determine whether there was error. See Valdez v. Avita, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.-El Paso, 2007, no
pet.). Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutral
adjudicators and become an advocate for that party. See Plummer v. Reeves, 93 S.W.3d 930, 931 (Tex. App.-
Amarillo 2003, pet. denied).
Jackson's brief does not contain any legal analysis or citation to the record, nor does it discuss her assertions of
error. Thus, she has not identified an issue for review. See Fredonia State Bank, 881 S.W.2d at 284. Although
Jackson was given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in her brief, she failed to do so. Because Jackson
has failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, she has waived her issues on appeal. See
Divine v. Dallas Cnty, 130 S.W.3d 512, 513-514 (Tex. App. -Dallas 2004, no pet.) (holding failure to adequately
brief complain waives issue on appeal). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Appellants appear pro se. We construe liberally pro se pleadings and briefs; however, we hold pro se litigants to
the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of
procedure. In re N.E.B., 251 S.W.3d 211, 211-12 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (citing Mansfield State Bank v.
Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978)). To do otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage
over a litigant who is represented by counsel. Id. at 212.
CASES IN WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED REVIEW
09‑0727
JOHN FOX v. CITY OF EL PASO, THOMAS MAGUIRE, WILLIAM STERN, MARIO D'AGOSTINO, SAM JARVIS AND
JOHN DOE(S); from El Paso County;
8th district (08‑08‑00093‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07‑22‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009)
(defective appellate briefing, pro se litigants held to the same standards)
In this issue Fox cites some authority for his contention the appellate courts must excuse the lack of expertise
and experience of pro se litigants, and must deal with them more favorably than they would with licensed
attorneys in order to avoid the exploitation by such attorneys. However, in order to prevent unfair advantage
over litigants represented by counsel, pro se litigants in Texas are held to the same standards as licensed
attorneys and are required to comply with applicable laws and procedural rules. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d
439, 444 (Tex. 2005); Fox v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007, rev. dism'd w.o.j.).
08-0034
CARL R. DAILY v. BOWIE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT; from Bowie County; 6th district
(06-07-00055-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-28-07, pet. denied Feb 2008) (tax appraisal protest appeal)
Carl R. Daily appealed a determination of the tax evaluations placed on his properties by the Bowie County
Appraisal District (Bowie CAD) as ratified by the Bowie County Appraisal Review Board.
After a trial before the court, he was granted partial relief by the trial judge (1) and appeals the sufficiency of the
relief and the finding denying him other relief. We affirm the judgment.
Daily, appearing pro se, first attempted to file an appellant's brief, which was rejected as far too lengthy, and he
was ordered to re-brief; he subsequently filed a shorter brief which, for the most part, is disorganized, confusing,
and extraordinarily difficult to comprehend.
Likewise, at trial, it is almost impossible to determine from the record at which point Daily abandons the role of his
own advocate and attempts to assume the role of a witness.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant's brief to contain "a clear and concise argument
for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h). On
appeal, as at trial, the pro se appellant must properly present his case. Plummer v. Reeves, 93 S.W.3d 930, 931
(Tex. App.--Amarillo 2003, pet. denied); Karen Corp. v. Burlington N. and Sante Fe Ry. Co., 107 S.W.3d 118,
125 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied).
A pro se litigant is obligated to comport with the Rules of Procedure just as one represented by an attorney is
required to comply with them. Holt v. F.F. Enters., 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. denied).
Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, to the extent that we are able to glean the nature of Daily's complaints, we
attempt to address them.
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action and Defenses | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams |
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions Homepage |