Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Stacey Richardson Galloway, appearing pro se, appealed from an order entered by the Lubbock County trial court in probate proceedings (Trial Court No. CC-2024-PR-0553). Galloway filed documents on May 28, 2026, which the court construed as her appellate brief. However, the brief contained substantial deficiencies: it failed to identify any purported trial court error, cite applicable law or legal standards, and included no references to the appellate record.
On May 29, 2026, the court notified Galloway that her brief did not substantially comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and directed her to file an amended brief by June 12, 2026. The court explicitly warned that failure to comply could result in her brief being stricken and the appeal dismissed. Galloway did not respond.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals held that Galloway’s failure to cure the substantial deficiencies in her brief after notice and opportunity to amend warranted striking the brief and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. Although appellate rules are construed liberally to preserve the right to appellate review, courts are not required to search the record or perform legal research on a party’s behalf.
When briefing rules are flagrantly violated, an appellate court may require amendment and, if defects are not cured, strike the brief and treat it as if no brief was filed. Because Galloway did not respond to the court’s notice, the appeal was dismissed pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a)(1), 38.9(a), and 42.3(b).
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must strictly comply with briefing requirements, including identifying trial court errors, citing applicable law, and referencing the appellate record.
- Courts will provide notice of deficiencies and opportunity to cure, but failure to respond results in dismissal.
- Pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties; self-representation does not excuse non-compliance with appellate rules.
- Appellate courts will not conduct legal research or search the record on behalf of non-compliant parties.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strict enforcement of appellate procedural rules in Texas. While courts attempt to preserve appellate review through liberal interpretation of the rules, they will not substitute for an appellant’s failure to meet basic briefing requirements. The decision is significant for pro se litigants, who must understand that representing oneself does not exempt one from the same procedural demands placed on represented parties.
The opinion also clarifies that appellate courts have no obligation to search records or conduct legal research to salvage deficient briefs. Appellants bear the responsibility for presenting coherent, legally supported arguments. Failure to do so, particularly after notice and opportunity to cure, results in dismissal for want of prosecution.