Iris Rodriguez, Appellant v. Angel Rivera, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

Iris Rodriguez, Appellant v. Angel Rivera, Appellee

NO. 03–14–00332–CV

Decided: November 21, 2014

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Iris Rodriguez filed her notice of appeal on May 23, 2014.   That same day, we notified Rodriguez that she was required to provide us with a docketing statement and the $195.00 filing fee by June 2. We also informed her that she was required to make a written request and arrangements to pay for the clerk's record and the reporter's record within ten days from her receipt of our letter.   Rodriguez filed an affidavit of indigency, which was contested by the court reporter and the appellee.   The trial court sustained the contest, meaning that Rodriguez is required to pay the court reporter's fee for preparing the record and other appellate costs.

The reporter's record from the trial court was due to be filed in this Court on June 16.   On July 2, we notified Rodriguez that no reporter's record had been filed due to her failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter's record.   The Court's notice informed Rodriguez that if she did not make arrangements for the reporter's record or otherwise reply to the notice by July 14, the Court would consider the appeal without the reporter's record and Rodriguez's brief would be due on August 1.

In response, Rodriguez filed a motion for extension of time to file the reporter's record.   We granted the motion, making the reporter's record due on August 1, and we requested that Rodriguez file a status report by July 28.   On August 7, we notified Rodriguez that no reporter's record had been filed because Rodriguez had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for the reporter's record.   The notice informed Rodriguez that her brief was due on September 8. Rodriguez failed to file a brief by that date.   On September 24, we notified Rodriguez that her brief was overdue and that a failure to respond by October 6 would result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.

The October 6 deadline has passed, and Rodriguez has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.   Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.   See Tex.R.App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

David Puryear, Justice

Copied to clipboard