Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roy Wayne Jackson Jr. appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals at Beaumont from a final judgment signed on October 3, 2025, by the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas. The underlying trial cause was No. 24-12-19822. Jackson filed his notice of appeal on November 25, 2025. The appellees listed in the appellate caption were James Metts and Bryan Collier.
On December 9, 2025, the appellate clerk issued a notice stating that it appeared Jackson had filed the notice of appeal too late to perfect an appeal. The clerk directed Jackson to provide proof of when the notice of appeal was turned in for mailing, a copy of his six-month inmate trust account statement, and a declaration of previous filings. The court cited Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sections 14.002, 14.004, and 14.006(f) in connection with those requests.
According to the memorandum opinion, Jackson had not responded to the clerk’s notice as of the court’s decision. The opinion does not describe the merits of the underlying dispute, the claims or defenses presented in the trial court, or the substance of the final judgment. It addresses the appellate filing and the appellant’s failure to comply with the clerk’s directive.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It stated that Jackson failed to comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time, citing Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). The court then cited Rule 43.2(f) as the authority for dismissal and entered the disposition “APPEAL DISMISSED.”
The dismissal rested on Jackson’s failure to respond to the clerk’s notice, not on a publicly stated adjudication of the merits of the underlying case. Although the clerk’s December 9 notice identified an apparent untimeliness problem and requested mailing proof and inmate-filing materials, the court’s stated basis for dismissal was noncompliance with that notice. The opinion does not separately announce a holding that the notice of appeal was untimely, nor does it decide whether the requested materials would have established timely filing.
The memorandum opinion was issued per curiam. It was submitted on November 4, 2026, and delivered on November 5, 2026, before Johnson, Wright, and Chambers, JJ. The opinion contains no separate concurrence or dissent and provides no additional reasoning beyond the procedural grounds described above.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth District dismissed Jackson’s appeal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), citing Rule 43.2(f).
- The immediate basis for dismissal was Jackson’s failure to respond to the appellate clerk’s December 9, 2025 notice requiring specified proof and filing-related materials.
- The clerk had flagged apparent untimeliness, but the court did not separately decide the merits of timeliness or the underlying dispute.
- The opinion supplies no substantive ruling on the claims against Metts and Collier and no factual review of the trial court’s judgment.
Why It Matters
The disposition illustrates the consequence identified by the court when an appellant does not comply with a clerk’s notice requiring a response or other action within a specified time: dismissal for want of prosecution under the cited appellate rules. The requested items included proof of when the notice of appeal was turned in for mailing and materials associated with the cited inmate-filing provisions.
The decision should be read narrowly according to its stated rationale. It is a procedural dismissal based on nonresponse, not a published merits determination or a general ruling that every similarly situated appeal is untimely. Because the memorandum opinion gives only the procedural history and dismissal ground, no broader legal or factual conclusions can be drawn from it.