NUMBER 13-22-00203-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ ESCAMILLA, Appellant, v. RICARDO CADENA, Appellee.

On appeal from the 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva Order Per Curiam This cause is before the Court on appellant’s motions for leave to file amended brief. On December 20, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his brief was received but that it did not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h); 38.8(b)(2), (3).On January 3, 2023, appellant filed an amended brief, and the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that his amended brief also did not comply.

Upon review of appellant’s amended brief, we find that the brief contains numerous formal defects, and that the case has not been properly presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. In particular, the brief does not conform to rule 38.1(a) and (i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (i).

Accordingly, appellant’s motions for leave to file a brief are denied, and, under the authority of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) and (b), we order appellant to amend or redraw the brief to conform to the rule within thirty days from the date of this Order. If the new brief is filed in compliance with this order, no motion for leave shall be required. Furthermore, appellant is hereby notified that if another brief does not comply, it may be stricken, and appellant may be prohibited from filing another brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. In that circumstance, the Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and appellant’s failure to comply with this Court’s directive and the appellate rules. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the 31st day of January, 2023.