Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kiya Sakaris, an indigent pro se litigant, appealed an order from the 480th District Court of Williamson County that granted a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the State of Texas and the Department of Family and Protective Services. As part of her appeal, Sakaris filed a request with the trial court for a reporter’s record, specifying that she sought the record for “all hearings reflected on the trial court docket in this cause,” which included three hearings.
The deadline for filing the reporter’s record with the Third Court of Appeals passed without the record being filed. The court reporter, Steven Stogel, also failed to respond to the appellate court’s notice regarding the overdue record. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ordered the court reporter to file the record by May 8, 2026. However, the court reporter again failed to comply, stating to the Court of Appeals that Sakaris “failed to indicate [requested] records by date and did not responde [sic] to emails from me asking for clarification.”
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Third Court of Appeals abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court. The purpose of this remand is for the trial court to determine the specific hearing dates for which Sakaris is seeking a reporter’s record. This action addresses the ambiguity cited by the court reporter regarding the scope of Sakaris’s request.
In addition to remanding for clarification, the Court of Appeals ordered the court reporter to prepare and file the reporter’s record with the appellate court no later than August 20, 2026. The court specified that the appeal would be reinstated upon the timely filing of the complete reporter’s record.
Key Takeaways
- Appeals may be abated and remanded to the trial court when procedural issues, such as an incomplete or ambiguous request for a reporter’s record, prevent proper appellate review.
- Pro se litigants must provide sufficiently specific requests for court records to avoid delays and ensure the appellate process can proceed efficiently.
- Court reporters are obligated to timely prepare and file requested records, and failure to do so can result in direct orders from appellate courts.
- Appellate courts retain jurisdiction over abated cases, allowing for reinstatement once identified procedural deficiencies at the trial court level are resolved.
Why It Matters
This case underscores the critical importance of procedural adherence and clear communication, particularly for pro se litigants, in navigating the appellate system. It demonstrates how appellate courts manage impediments to review, ensuring that a record is properly compiled before substantive issues can be addressed. The court’s action of abating and remanding highlights its commitment to a fair process, giving both the litigant an opportunity to clarify their request and the court reporter a clear directive to fulfill their duty.
Moreover, the opinion serves as a reminder to court reporters of their responsibility to engage with requests and to the trial courts to facilitate the preparation of necessary records for appeal. The strict deadline imposed for the record’s filing, along with the condition for reinstatement of the appeal, emphasizes the court’s intent to resolve the procedural impasse efficiently.