Background
Sasha Ortiz Ollis appealed from the 264th District Court of Bell County, No. 290435, where the Honorable Paul L. LePak presided. Christopher Ryan Michael Elick was the appellee. The Third Court of Appeals identified the case as No. 03-26-00602-CV and issued a memorandum opinion signed by Justice Chari L. Kelly. The opinion was before Chief Justice Byrne and Justices Kelly and Theofanis.
The clerk’s record was due for filing in the Court of Appeals on August 30, 2026. On September 16, the Court’s Clerk notified Ollis that no clerk’s record had been filed because she had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing that record. The notice requested that she make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding the appeal by September 25.
The Clerk’s notice also advised Ollis that failure to comply with the request could result in dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. As of the opinion, Ollis had not filed a status report or otherwise responded to the notice, and the clerk’s record still had not been filed. The memorandum opinion does not describe the underlying trial-court dispute or address its merits.
The Court’s Holding
The court stated the governing rule under Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b): if a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record because an appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed without payment of costs.
Applying that rule, the court stated that Ollis had not established that she was entitled to proceed without payment of costs, citing Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 with a “See” signal. The opinion does not provide further explanation concerning that citation or any additional factual findings about costs.
The court then held that, because Ollis had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The opinion’s stated basis was the unpaid or unarranged preparation fee, the absence of a filed clerk’s record, Ollis’s lack of response to the Clerk’s notice, and her failure to establish entitlement to proceed without payment of costs. The court did not decide any substantive issue between the parties.
Key Takeaways
- The Third Court of Appeals dismissed Ollis’s appeal for want of prosecution under Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).
- The Clerk’s September 16 notice requested arrangements for the clerk’s record and a status report by September 25 and warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal.
- Ollis did not file a status report or otherwise respond, and no clerk’s record was filed.
- The court stated that Ollis had not established entitlement to proceed without payment of costs and cited Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 after that statement.
Why It Matters
The opinion applies Rule 37.3(b) to the specific circumstances presented: a missing clerk’s record associated with the appellant’s failure to pay or arrange payment of the preparation fee, no response to the Clerk’s notice, and no established entitlement to proceed without payment of costs. Its disposition is a procedural dismissal for want of prosecution, not a ruling on the merits of the underlying case.
The memorandum opinion was filed October 30, 2026, and its stated disposition was “Dismissed for Want of Prosecution.” The opinion identifies no additional claims, rulings, or relief beyond that dismissal.