DALE SUE JONES AND STANLEY RAY JONES APPELLANTS v. TED SCOTT ET AL APPELLEES

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

DALE SUE JONES AND STANLEY RAY JONES, APPELLANTS v. TED SCOTT, M.D., ET AL., APPELLEES

NO. 07-04-0077-CV

Decided: October 28, 2010

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DALE SUE JONES

This appeal, stemming from a pro se health care liability claim related to a weight loss procedure, has been pending since 2004.   Following numerous bankruptcies and the death of pro se Appellant Dale Sue Jones on February 8, 2009, this Court issued an order on July 7, 2010, and a second order on July 19, 2010, in an effort to clarify the status of the appeal and the parties involved.   This Court concluded that after the death of Dale Sue Jones, Stanley Ray Jones, who is not a licensed attorney, could not prosecute his spouse's claims on behalf of her estate and that a licensed attorney would be required to represent her interests in this appeal.   In re Murphy, 2009 Tex.App. Lexis 3934, at *14-15 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] March 5, 2009, no pet.) (mem.op.).

By the July 7th order, this Court directed that legal counsel be engaged to represent the interests of Dale Sue Jones and that a notice of representation be filed in this Court on or before September 3, 2010, noting that failure to comply would result in dismissal.   This Court also ordered that Dale Sue Jones's brief on the merits be filed on or before October 4, 2010, again noting that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

On October 7, 2010, Stanley Ray Jones filed “Appellant's Application for Extension of Time to Obtain Counsel.”   By the motion, Mr. Jones represents that he requires an extension to employ counsel to represent the interests of Dale Sue Jones.1  First, we note, that Mr. Jones, by filing a motion for extension of time to employ counsel on behalf of Dale Sue Jones, is attempting to represent the Estate of Dale Sue Jones.   This he cannot do.   Consequently, we take no action on that motion.   However, even if we were to consider the merits of that motion, we would deny the relief requested because not only has the Estate of Dale Sue Jones been afforded an adequate opportunity to retain counsel and failed to do so, the motion itself lacks substantive merit.

As both deadlines which were set by the July 7th order have lapsed, we dismiss that portion of the appeal as it pertains to the claims of Dale Sue Jones.   See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(b) and (c).  Only the issues raised by Stanley Ray Jones in his pro se brief will be considered following submission of this appeal.

Appellee, New Reflections, filed its brief in response to Stanley Ray Jones's brief on September 14, 2010.   Per the July 7th order, Dr. Ted Scott's Appellee's Brief in response to the issues raised by Stanley Ray Jones is due on or before November 3, 2010.

It is so ordered.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Stanley Ray Jones's pro se brief on the merits was filed on May 13, 2010..  FN1. Stanley Ray Jones's pro se brief on the merits was filed on May 13, 2010.

Per Curiam

Copied to clipboard