Background
Samuel Lopez, proceeding pro se, appealed from the County Court at Law of Hill County, Texas, in a case against Wells Fargo Bank, NA. The appeal was transferred from the Tenth Court of Appeals to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals under a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas.
On June 5, 2026, the appellate clerk notified Lopez that his brief was due by July 6. After he missed that deadline, the clerk notified him on July 22 that the brief was past due and warned that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless he reasonably explained the failure within ten days. Lopez neither filed a brief nor responded to the notices.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals dismissed Lopez’s appeal for want of prosecution. The court relied on Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), and 42.3(c), which permit dismissal when an appellant fails to file a brief and does not reasonably explain the omission after receiving notice.
The court did not address the merits of Lopez’s claims against Wells Fargo. Its disposition rested solely on Lopez’s failure to prosecute the appeal by submitting the required brief or responding to the clerk’s warning.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant’s failure to file a brief can result in dismissal for want of prosecution.
- A pro se appellant remains responsible for complying with appellate briefing deadlines and court notices.
- The dismissal was procedural and did not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that appellate courts may dismiss civil appeals when appellants ignore briefing deadlines and fail to respond after receiving notice and an opportunity to explain. Attorneys and self-represented litigants should treat a past-due notice as a final opportunity to preserve appellate review.