Robert Robinson v. the Honorable Andy Dunklin, Justice of the Peace, PCT 2, Smith County, Texas

NO. 12-24-00094-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT ROBINSON, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT

V.
§ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE HONORABLE ANDY DUNKLIN,
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT 2,
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

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. 1 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; see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. An appellate court may
enforce Rule 5 by any order that is just. TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

1 Pro se litigants, such as Appellant, 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.).
On April 23, 2024, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant, Robert Robinson, that the
filing fee in this appeal is due and the appeal would be subject to dismissal if the fee was not paid
on or before May 3. The date for remitting the filing fee passed, and Appellant has not paid the
fee or otherwise shown that he is excused from paying the fee. 2
Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is dismissed. 3
See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered May 15, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 The case information sheet from the Smith County District Clerk’s Office reflects that Appellant was not

declared indigent in the trial court.
3 Nor has Appellant filed the required docketing statement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. Additionally,
Appellant’s notice of appeal fails to comply with Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each
court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). We further note that the nonsuit was signed on February
22, 2024, but Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until April 18. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3. And the trial
court’s order granting a nonsuit, from which Appellant appeals, does not appear to be an appealable order. See
Matter of Marriage of Adams, No. 07-19-00136-CV, 2019 WL 1997668, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo May 6, 2019,
no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see also Franklin v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 02-11-00372-CV, 2012 WL
254028, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2012, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.).

2
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 15, 2024

NO. 12-24-00094-CV

ROBERT ROBINSON,
Appellant
V.
THE HONORABLE ANDY DUNKLIN, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PCT 2, SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 24-0244-C)

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 the 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