Jimmy Lee Menifee, Appellant v. Clean Connections Transitional Housing, Appellee (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jimmy Lee Menifee appeals the trial court's judgment awarding possession of the property at 6432 Strawberry Trail in Dallas to Clean Connections Transitional Housing.  We dismiss this appeal.

Clean Connections filed a petition in justice court to evict Menifee from the property.  After the justice court ruled in favor of Clean Connection, Menifee filed an appeal in the county court at law.  Menifee was appointed counsel to represent him, after which the parties entered into a rule 11 agreement.  After reviewing the agreement, the trial court found the parties had fully and finally compromised and settled and, as a result, entered judgment in favor of Clear Connections.  Menifee then filed a pro se motion for new trial, alleging that proper procedures were not followed.  The trial court overruled his motion, and Menifee filed this appeal.

In his one-page brief, Menifee again asserts “proced[ures were] not followed”;  however, his brief did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  We instructed him to file an amended brief that complied with the rules.  Our notice specifically stated his failure to file an amended brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure by the deadline given might result in dismissal of his appeal without further notice from the Court.  Menifee did not file an amended brief as instructed by the Court.

Menifee's original brief does not state what his legal issues or complaints are, nor does he provide any legal authority or analysis to support any complaints.  Our appellate rules require an appellant state concisely the complaint he may have, provide understandable, succinct, and clear argument for why his complaint has merit in fact and in law, and cite and apply law that is applicable to the complaint being made along with record references that are appropriate.  Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(f), (h), and (i).  Only when we are provided with proper briefing may we discharge our responsibility to review the appeal and make a decision that disposes of the appeal one way or the other.  Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.App.Dallas 2010, no pet.).  We are not responsible for identifying possible trial court error, searching the record for facts that may be favorable to a party's position, or doing the legal research that might support a party's contentions.  Id. Were we to do so, even for a pro se litigant untrained in law, we would be abandoning our role as judges and become an advocate for that party.  Id.

Because he has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after having been given the opportunity to do so, we dismiss Menifee's appeal.  See id. at 897.

Opinion by Justice Francis