Milisa Foster Galyeon v. Christin F. Phelps and Unknown

NO. 12-23-00286-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MILISA FOSTER GALYEON, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CHRISTIN F. PHELPS AND
UNKNOWN RESPONDENT, § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Appellant, Milisa F. Galyeon, filed a pro se notice of appeal on November 13, 2023. The
reporter’s record was filed on December 11 and the clerk’s record was filed on April 3, 2024.
Appellant’s brief was due May 6. On May 13, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant the
brief was past due. We further notified Appellant that the appeal may be dismissed for want of
prosecution unless a motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the
failure to file a brief and showing that Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby, was
filed no later than May 23. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file her brief, which
this Court granted to June 6. Appellant submitted a brief on June 6, but the brief failed to
comply with service requirements. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service). 2 The Clerk of this Court

1 Appellant states she received a verbal order prohibiting her from contacting Appellee, Christin F. Phelps.

However, Rule 9.5 requires a filing party to serve a copy of the filed document on all parties to the proceeding and
this may be done electronically or by other means, such as by mail or commercial delivery service, as appropriate.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5.
2 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all

applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties
represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3
(Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
notified Appellant of the defect and advised that failure to correct the defect on or before June 14
would result in the brief being returned and deemed past due, and the case being presented to the
Court for dismissal for failure to timely file a brief. Appellant failed to file a supplement to
correct the defect. On June 21, this Court returned the brief to Appellant for non-compliance
with the appellate rules but gave Appellant until July 1 to file an amended brief. On July 10, we
notified Appellant that her brief was returned on June 21, an amended brief was due to be filed
July 1, and said amended brief or a motion for extension of time to file the brief, was not filed.
We further notified Appellant that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a
motion for extension of time, containing a reasonable explanation for the failure to file a brief
and showing that Appellees had not suffered material injury thereby, was filed no later than July
22.
The July 22 deadline passed without Appellant filing an amended brief or other response
to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

Opinion delivered July 31, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2024

NO. 12-23-00286-CV

MILISA FOSTER GALYEON,
Appellant
V.
CHRISTIN F. PHELPS AND UNKNOWN RESPONDENT,
Appellees

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 21-1656-C)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being
considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of
prosecution.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
the appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J