Carolyn Sue Thomas v. Dallas Housing Authority

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 23, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00856-CV

CAROLYN SUE THOMAS, Appellant
V.
DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-02447-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
On January 25, 2024, we notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that her

brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did

not contain an index of authorities indicating the pages in the brief where the

authorities are cited, and it did not contain proper citations either to the record or to

authorities. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting the

deficiencies within ten days. We later extended the time to file her amended brief.

On February 20, 2024, appellant filed an amended brief addressing some of the
deficiencies, but not all. Like appellant’s initial brief, appellant’s argument does not

contain any citations to the record or to authority. We are not responsible for

searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party’s position. Bolling v.

Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 201, no

pet.) (citing Fredonia State Bank v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279, 283–

284 (Tex. 1994)).

The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in

a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9. The right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in

accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to

concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and

specific arguments in support of appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities,

and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1

(Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895.

Even liberally construing appellant’s amended brief, we conclude that it is

inadequate to present any questions for appellate review and is in flagrant violation

of rule 38.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 895. Further, although

directed to correct all deficiencies, appellant has failed to do so.

–2–
Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s amended brief and dismiss this

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
230856F.P05

–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

CAROLYN SUE THOMAS, On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-02447-
No. 05-23-00856-CV V. B.
Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
DALLAS HOUSING AUTHORITY, Chief Justice Burns and Justice
Appellee Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

Judgment entered July 23, 2024

–4–