Felicia Brooks v. Laurel Heights at Cityview LP

NUMBER 13-25-00087-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

FELICIA BROOKS, Appellant,

v.

LAUREL HEIGHTS AT CITYVIEW LP, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1
OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. On January 29, 2025, appellant

Felicia Brooks filed her notice of appeal seeking to stay the execution of the writ of

possession granted by the trial court in favor of appellee Laurel Heights at Cityview LP.

1 This appeal was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to an order issued by the

Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
Between March 28, 2025, and April 2, 2025, a supplemental clerk’s record was

filed with the Court as well as a notice of execution of writ of possession. Both the

supplemental clerk’s record and notice informed this Court that appellee took possession

of the subject property, and appellee and the trial court opined that appellant’s appeal

was rendered moot as a result. Accordingly, on May 5, 2025, we ordered appellant to file

an appellate brief by May 25, 2025, regarding whether her appeal had been rendered

moot by subsequent proceedings. As of today, appellant has failed to file any subsequent

briefing or any other notice. The Court has attempted to provide notice at the address

provided by appellant, and she has an ongoing duty to provide this Court with her current

contact information. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys,

and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State

Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).

The Court, having reviewed the appellate record, is of the opinion that appellant

has failed to diligently prosecute her appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we

hereby dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with a notice

from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). Any and all other pending motions are denied as moot.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
12th day of June, 2025.

2