Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Wilton Irvon Lombard Jr., proceeding without counsel, sought to appeal a Wise County court order dismissing his case with prejudice. The Texas Second Court of Appeals construed a document received from Lombard on December 17, 2025, as his appellate brief. The eleven-sentence document was identical to his notice of appeal.
The court notified Lombard three times that the brief did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure or the court’s local rules. Each notice directed him to submit an amended, compliant brief and warned that failure to do so could result in the brief being stricken and the appeal dismissed. Lombard did not file a compliant amended brief, although he attempted to file several unrelated, procedurally deficient motions.
The Court’s Holding
The court struck Lombard’s noncompliant brief and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It held that dismissal was warranted because Lombard failed to cure the briefing deficiencies after receiving repeated notice, an opportunity to amend, and explicit warnings about the consequences of noncompliance.
The court relied on Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), and 43.2(f). It also denied all pending motions. The court did not address the merits of the trial court’s dismissal order.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se appellants must comply with appellate briefing and filing rules.
- An appellate court may strike a deficient brief and dismiss an appeal when the appellant fails to correct identified defects after notice and an opportunity to amend.
- Filing unrelated or procedurally defective motions does not substitute for filing a compliant appellate brief.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that repeated failure to satisfy basic appellate briefing requirements can end an appeal before the court considers its merits. Litigants who receive a deficiency notice must correct every identified problem by the stated deadline or risk dismissal for want of prosecution.