Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-24-00436-CV __________________ STEVEN J. STRINGFELLOW, Appellant V. HAMZA KHAN, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-10-17001-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Steven J. Stringfellow appeals an order dismissing his lawsuit against Hamza Khan for want of prosecution. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Background In his original petition, Stringfellow alleged that Khan filed a suit for eviction that Stringfellow appealed to the county court at law as Trial Cause Number 1 4EV87401 (the “eviction suit”). 1 Stringfellow alleged the county court at law signed an order of nonsuit in the eviction suit. Stringfellow alleged Khan wrongfully filed for eviction for non-payment of rent in retaliation against Stringfellow for withholding rent due to Khan’s failure to remedy or repair a condition that materially affected the physical health or safety of an ordinary tenant. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 92.056(e)(3); 92.331(a)(2), (b)(1). Stringfellow prayed for money damages under Property Code section 92.0563 and a writ of re-entry on the property to retrieve his possessions. Id. § 92.0563. After Stringfellow filed his original petition, he filed an application for an injunction in which he asked the trial court to dismiss two criminal cases Stringfellow alleged resulted from the execution of a writ of possession in the eviction suit that was later non-suited by Khan.2 Stringfellow also filed an Application for a Writ of Possession to return to Stringfellow the leased premises that he claimed were the subject of a writ of possession wrongfully issued and executed when the eviction case was in the justice court. 1 Stringfellow’s appeal from the judgment of the County Court at Law Number Six is docketed as Appeal Number 09-24-00385-CV, Steven J. Stringfellow v. Hamza Khan. 2 Stringfellow’s accelerated appeal from the denial of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is docketed as Appeal Number 09-25-00526-CR, Ex parte Steven J. Stringfellow. 2 On November 19, 2024, Stringfellow filed a Motion and Statement for Electronic Service of Citation. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b)(2). On November 20, 2024, the trial court issued a Show Cause Order. The trial court ordered all parties seeking affirmative relief to appear before the court on December 6, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. The order warned, “Failure to appear and show good cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution will result in dismissal by the Court and removal from the docket of this Court.” The court coordinator sent the order to Stringfellow at the email address on file with the District Clerk’s Office. Stringfellow failed to appear before the trial court on December 6, 2024. That afternoon the trial court again called the case. Stringfellow failed to appear and the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. Stringfellow did not file a motion to reinstate. On December 16, 2024, Stringfellow filed a Notice of Appeal. Standard of Review We review a trial court’s dismissal for want of prosecution for an abuse of discretion. See MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997) (“We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under a clear abuse of discretion standard; the central issue is whether the plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence.”). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles 3 or in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). Analysis In Appellant’s Brief, Stringfellow argues, [R]elief may be granted under Texas Property Code for the damages incurred from the Appellee … due to repairs on the property having never been completed according to law and from the unlawful writ of possession having been executed in the eviction complaint filed by the Appellee, which was dismissed in favor of Appellant during the appeal. A trial court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a when a party receives notice but fails to appear for any hearing or trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1). Additionally, the trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. See Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999) (“[T]he common law vests the trial court with the inherent power to dismiss independently of the rules of procedure when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case with due diligence.”); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(4). Before a trial court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution under either Rule 165a or its inherent authority, it must provide a party with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630. Rule 165a provides a procedure for reinstating a case dismissed for want of prosecution by filing a verified motion within thirty days explaining why the case should be reinstated. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). The trial court must set a hearing 4 on the motion with notice to the parties, and the trial court must reinstate the case if it finds “after a hearing that the failure of the party or his attorney was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to an accident or mistake or that the failure has been otherwise reasonably explained.” Id. In his Appellant’s Brief, Stringfellow argues the judgment should be reversed because his claims have merit. He does not address his failure to appear for the December 6 show cause hearing. He does not complain about the adequacy of the notice requiring his appearance in court on December 6. Stringfellow filed his Notice of Appeal ten days later, on December 16, conclusively establishing that within the time to file a motion to reinstate Stringfellow knew the trial court had dismissed his case. “[I]f a party learns of the dismissal of his case within thirty days but fails to file a reinstatement motion, he waives any due-process complaints associated with the dismissal.” Cunningham v. Smith, No. 02-25-00195-CV, 2026 WL 547512, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 26, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.). The trial court provided notice of the hearing and gave Stringfellow an opportunity to explain why the case should remain on the docket. Stringfellow failed to serve the Defendant, failed to file a motion to retain the case on the docket, failed to appear at the show cause hearing, failed to explain to the trial court why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution, and failed to file a motion to 5 reinstate. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the suit for want of prosecution. Conclusion We overrule Appellant’s issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. KENT CHAMBERS Justice Submitted on June 29, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 27, 2026 Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 6