IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-95-059-CV

     PRESTON BRIGGS,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     ROBERT REBUCK, ET AL.,

                                                                                              Appellees

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 95-031-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Preston Briggs appealed from the court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis petition. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Briggs filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 1995, and the transcript was filed in this court on March 17. Although his brief was due on April 17, no appellant's brief has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(k). Appellate Rule 74(l)(1) provides:

Civil Cases. In civil cases, when the appellant has failed to file his brief in the time prescribed, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless reasonable explanation is shown for such failure and that appellee has not suffered material injury thereby. The court may, however, decline to dismiss the appeal, whereupon it shall give such direction to the cause as it may deem proper.

Id. 74(l)(1).

      More than thirty days have passed since Briggs' brief was due. We notified him of this defect by letter on May 19. See id. 60(a)(2), 83. He responded to our letter, claiming that the court dismissed his petition because he used the unsworn declarations form provided by the legislature for use by inmates. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.003 (Vernon Supp. 1995). However, this claim does not show grounds for continuing the appeal, nor is it a reasonable explanation for failing to file a brief.

      Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 74(l)(1).

                                                                               PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

      Justice Cummings, and

      Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of prosecution

Opinion delivered and filed June 7, 1995

Do not publish