NUMBER 13-24-00315-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

STELLA JOHNSON-GOODLEY AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants, v. ELLIOTT GRANT HOMES, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca On June 14, 2024, appellant Stella Johnson-Goodley filed a pro se notice of appeal from a final judgment of eviction. That same day, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that her notice of appeal did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(1–5), and 25.1(e). See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(1–5), 25.1(e). The Clerk requested correction of these defects, if possible, and advised appellant that the appeal would be referred to the Court for further action if a proper notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days. See id. R. 37.1.

On June 24, 2024, appellant filed an amended notice of appeal; however, appellant’s amended notice of appeal contained these same defects. On June 25, 2024, the Clerk advised appellant that her amended notice of appeal also failed to comply with the appellate rules. See id. R. 9.1(b), 9.5, 25.1(d)(1–5), 25.1(e). The Clerk requested correction of these defects, if possible, and advised appellant that the appeal would be referred to the Court for further action if a proper notice of appeal was not filed within fifteen days. See id. R. 37.1. However, appellant did not file a second amended notice of appeal.

On August 21, 2024, the Clerk again advised appellant that her amended notice of appeal failed to comply with the appellate rules and advised her that if the defects were not cured within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed. See id. R. 37.1, 42.3.

Nevertheless, appellant has not filed a second amended notice of appeal.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, the foregoing events, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (“While it is true we liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs, a pro se litigant is still required to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure.”). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id.

2 R. 42.3(b), (c).

YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice Delivered and filed on the 6th day of February, 2025.