NO. 12-19-00220-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS ROBIN FANNING, § APPEAL FROM THE APPELLANT V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW TRINITY VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND BONNIE FERGUSON, APPELLEES § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). Robin Fanning, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal to challenge an order of dismissal signed on February 22, 2019. The clerk’s record was filed on December 13, 2019. 1 Fanning’s brief was due on or before January 13, 2020. On January 15, this Court notified Fanning that the brief was past due. We further notified Fanning that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a brief and showing that Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby, is filed no later than January 27.

On January 27, Fanning filed a motion for extension of time to file an appellate brief, but the motion failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 5 and 10.1(a)(5). See TEX. R. APP. 5 (party who is not excused by statute or rules from paying costs must pay--at time item is presented for filing--whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order); see also TEX.

On September 4, 2019, this Court dismissed Fanning’s appeal for want of jurisdiction after Fanning failed to address the jurisdictional question presented in our notice of untimely appeal. See Fanning v. Trinity Valley Elec.

Coop., No. 12-19-00220-CV, 2019 WL 4197053 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 4, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). We subsequently granted Fanning’s motion for rehearing, in which Fanning demonstrated the jurisdiction of this Court.

R. APP. 10.1(a)(5) (requiring motions in civil cases, except motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration, be accompanied by certificate of conference). 2 That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Fanning that the motion failed to comply with these rules and that the motion may be overruled unless Fanning forwarded the $10 filing fee, along with a certificate of conference or an amended motion, to this Court on or before February 3. This deadline passed without a response from Fanning. Accordingly, this Court overruled the motion for failure to comply with Rules 5 and 10.1(a)(5).

When an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

A pro se litigant, such as Fanning, is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16- 00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

But for this rule, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over those parties who are represented by counsel. Id. Because Fanning failed to (1) either file a timely brief or file a late brief accompanied by a motion for leave to file late brief or (2) file a compliant motion for extension of time along with the required filing fee, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Opinion delivered February 12, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

The record does not indicate that Fanning has been declared indigent. We also note that Fanning paid the $205 filing fee when initiating this appeal.

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT FEBRUARY 12, 2020

NO. 12-19-00220-CV

ROBIN FANNING, Appellant V. TRINITY VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. AND BONNIE FERGUSON, Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV05721)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.