Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
SanJuanita Gomez, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal on December 16, 2025, from a trial court decision in Fort Bend County. Under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appellant was required to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record by April 10, 2026. Gomez failed to pay this fee or make arrangements to do so.
The appellate court notified Gomez that her appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution and directed her to submit written evidence by May 21, 2026, confirming payment or payment arrangements. Instead, Gomez filed a Motion to Abate Appeal on May 26, 2026, citing ongoing mediation in a related parent-child relationship proceeding. The court denied the motion to abate on June 11, 2026, and reiterated that Gomez respond within ten days with evidence of payment. Gomez did not comply, and the clerk’s record was never filed.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Court of Appeals dismissed Gomez’s appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.3(b) and 42.3(b)–(c). The dismissal was based on Gomez’s failure to pay the clerk’s record fee and her non-compliance with repeated court orders directing her to provide evidence of payment.
The court rejected Gomez’s argument that mediation in the related family law proceeding justified abating the appellate appeal. The court found that Gomez’s procedural defaults—failure to pay the fee, failure to respond to directives, and failure to file the clerk’s record—were sufficient grounds for dismissal regardless of parallel settlement discussions. The court also dismissed all pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants must comply with clerk’s record payment requirements and respond to court directives regarding fee payment or face dismissal for want of prosecution.
- Settlement discussions or mediation in related proceedings do not excuse non-compliance with appellate procedure rules or justify abatement of a pending appeal.
- Pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties; courts will enforce appellate rules consistently.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates that appellate courts will enforce procedural requirements strictly to maintain orderly appellate processes. The dismissal despite Gomez’s good-faith attempt to address the dispute through mediation demonstrates that courts view appellate compliance as separate from substantive dispute resolution. The decision warns that a pro se litigant’s procedural missteps—even when coupled with settlement efforts—will not prevent dismissal.
For practitioners, this case reinforces the critical importance of managing procedural deadlines and fee payments in appeals. Courts have limited discretion to excuse non-compliance with clerk’s record payment requirements, and failure to respond to court orders results in swift dismissal, eliminating any opportunity to address the underlying merits.