IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-13-00249-CV MILTON L GARDNER, Appellant v. KIMBERLY REINDOLLAR, Appellee

From the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court No. 30,200-A

ORDER

A protective order was issued against Milton L. Gardner for the protection of Kimberly Reindollar. This proceeding is an appeal of that order and is a civil case.

Gardner is currently in the Limestone County Jail and in his brief and other documents filed with this Court has complained about the lack of access to legal research material and the record of the trial court proceeding for this civil proceeding.

However, based upon a supplemental clerk’s record filed on October 8, 2013, which contains a copy of the trial court’s order giving Gardner access to exhibits from the reporter’s record and mentioning access to a computer for legal research, it appears that Gardner’s need for access to the record and legal research materials has been addressed.1 Prior to the trial court’s order, Gardner filed a brief on October 4, 2013. We note initially that the brief is difficult to read in that it is handwritten, single spaced, and with no indentions at the beginning of each new paragraph. It does not contain a proof of service as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. A copy of all documents presented to the Court must be served on all parties to the proceeding and the document must contain proper proof of service. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5. Further, although the brief contains citations to the reporter’s record, it does not contain citations to any legal authority to support Gardner’s arguments on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i).

Subsequently, Gardner filed another brief. He has now filed a request to strike the brief filed on October 4, 2013. Gardner’s brief filed on October 4, 2013 is stricken.

In conjunction with his request to strike the brief filed on October 4, 2013, Gardner requests 20 additional days from October 8, 2013 to file a new brief, and prior

1 We encourage the trial court and county to continue to work with Gardner on access to legal research material and the record as necessary to facilitate his pro se representation in this appeal. Based on the referenced trial court’s order, it appears Gardner’s motion for access to legal materials, dated September 17, 2013 (filed on September 18, 2013), has been addressed. Accordingly, the motion is dismissed as moot. Further, the trial court’s order appears to address the issues mentioned in Gardner’s letter to the Court dated September 25, 2013 (received on September 27, 2013). To the extent that Gardner also requested a copy of this Court’s local rules by correspondence dated September 25, 2013 (received on September 27, 2013), the Clerk of this Court will send Gardner a copy of our local rules.

Gardner v. Reindollar Page 2 to the ruling on that motion, tendered an amended brief which was filed on October 17, 2013. Gardner’s motion for additional time is moot since his amended brief was received and filed and is thus before the Court. Accordingly, Gardner’s motion for additional time is dismissed.

Kimberly Reindollar’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Brief stricken Order issued and filed October 31, 2013

Gardner v. Reindollar Page 3