Gary Obleton v. Cynthia Guzman
13-16-00200-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Appellant Gary Obleton, proceeding pro se, appealed a Chapter 14 dismissal to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals.
- Obleton filed an initial brief (July 27, 2016) and a supplemental brief (Aug. 3, 2016) that the Clerk found noncompliant with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 9.5.
- The Court mailed two notices (Aug. 30 and Sept. 15, 2016) giving Obleton a reasonable opportunity (ten days each) to amend his brief; he did not file a conforming amended brief.
- Instead of curing briefing defects, Obleton filed multiple motions requesting appointment of counsel.
- The Court struck Obleton’s nonconforming brief, prohibited filing another, treated the appeal as if no brief had been filed, and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.
- The Court also denied appellee Cynthia Guzman’s motion for appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant’s noncompliant brief required amendment or dismissal | Obleton did not present a compliant brief; sought assistance via appointment of counsel | Guzman sought dismissal based on rules and nonprosecution | Court gave opportunity to amend, struck brief after no cure, dismissed for want of prosecution |
| Whether pro se status excuses compliance with briefing rules | Obleton implicitly argued for leniency / assistance | Court: pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys | Court applied ordinary standards; no leniency beyond reasonable opportunity to amend |
| Whether appointment of counsel was warranted | Obleton moved for appointment of counsel after notices | Guzman opposed; court found no basis to appoint counsel | Court denied appointment of counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. 2004) (rules construed liberally but not to impose unnecessary burdens)
- Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) (appellate rules construed reasonably and liberally)
- El Paso Nat. Gas v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 1999) (briefs construed to preserve appellate review)
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)
- Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (no special allowances for pro se litigants)
- Fredonia State Bank v. General Am. Life Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. 1994) (reasonable time to amend briefing defects is required)