LAKEITH AMIR SHARIF v. DOUGLAS HUGH SCHOPMEYER

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

LAKEITH AMIR–SHARIF, Appellant v. DOUGLAS HUGH SCHOPMEYER, Appellee

No. 05–09–01179–CV

Decided: March 31, 2011

Before Justices Morris, Bridges, and Francis

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Francis

LaKeith Amir–Sharif, a pro se inmate, sued his former criminal defense lawyer for legal malpractice.   Seven months later, the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution.   Amir–Sharif appealed, claiming he was deprived of an opportunity to participate in the trial court's ruling and deprived of a meaningful and adequate time and opportunity to be heard before dismissal.   He also contends the trial court failed to rule on his “properly filed papers/motions.”

The record in this case shows that one week before the trial court dismissed appellant's case, appellant filed a document entitled, “Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal.”   The document provided as follows:

Plaintiff, LaKeith Amir–Sharif, files a voluntary dismissal in the above-numbered and syled case, reserving the right to refile, pending the outcome of the last of three (3) criminal cases the defendant Schopmeyer represented the plaintiff on.

Here, the appeal derives from the trial court's order dismissing his case for want of prosecution, a disposition that does not prejudice appellant's right to refiling.  Christensen v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 304 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (explaining general rule is dismissal for want of prosecution is without prejudice to refiling).   Under these circumstances, appellant cannot show reversible error.   See Tex.R.App. P. 44.1(a).

We affirm the trial court's order of dismissal.

091179F.P05

MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE

Copied to clipboard