Charles Ronald Wade v. Harris County, Harris County Department of Education, Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Harris County Flood Control District, Harris County Hospital District, City of Houston, Houston Independent School District, and Houston Community College Sy
01-15-00155-CV
| Tex. App. | May 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Charles Wade filed a late Notice of Appeal (filed Feb 15, 2015) from a judgment in the 295th Judicial District Court, Harris County; appellees moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on untimeliness.
- The Court asked Wade to explain why the appellate court has jurisdiction; Wade responded claiming other post-judgment filings constituted a bona fide, timely attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction under former Rule 83 (now Tex. R. App. P. 44.3).
- Appellees reply that any document that seeks to preserve appellate review must be both filed timely and manifest an intent to appeal; Wade’s other filings were not timely and did not plainly invoke appellate jurisdiction.
- Appellees cite Texas authority holding that untimely filing of a notice (or other jurisdiction-invoking document) is a jurisdictional defect, not a mere procedural irregularity, requiring dismissal.
- Appellees also argue pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules; pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wade timely filed a proper notice of appeal | Wade argues other filings (e.g., motions, petition for injunction, motion for new trial) suffice to invoke appellate jurisdiction despite late formal Notice of Appeal | Appellees contend the February 15 Notice is untimely and none of Wade’s other filings were filed timely to preserve jurisdiction | Court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because no timely notice or timely bona fide document was filed |
| Whether alternative filings can be treated as a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction | Wade asserts alternative documents show intent to appeal and so should allow amendment/extension under former Rule 83 | Appellees argue any alternative document must itself be timely; untimely documents cannot confer jurisdiction | Bona fide alternative filings must be timely to confer jurisdiction; untimely filings do not save the appeal |
| Whether documents cited by Wade actually invoke appellate jurisdiction | Wade points to five specific post-judgment filings as invoking appellate review | Appellees argue none of those filings plainly stated intent to appeal or identified the appellate court, so they do not constitute a bona fide attempt | Documents that do not plainly state intent to appeal or invoke the appellate court do not confer jurisdiction |
| Whether pro se status relaxes the timeliness/technical requirements | Wade asks for leniency because he is pro se | Appellees respond pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as lawyers | Pro se status does not excuse failure to comply with rules; same standards apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Warwick Towers Council of Co-Owners v. Park Warwick, L.P., 244 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. 2008) (if appellant timely files a bona fide document invoking jurisdiction, courts may allow amendment/refiling)
- Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. S. Parts. Imp., Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam) (same principle regarding bona fide attempt to invoke jurisdiction)
- Foster v. Williams, 74 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (untimely alternative filings do not confer jurisdiction)
- Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (lack of timely filing for appeal is a jurisdictional defect, not a mere procedural irregularity)
- Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 102 (Tex. 1994) (instrument must be a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction to be treated as a notice of appeal)