Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-24-00557-CV Quinn Anthony WATKINS, Appellant v. Angela PANDYA-CALVILLO, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CV06277 Honorable Cesar Garcia, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Adrian A. Spears II, Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2026 DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION On July 14, 2026, Appellant Quinn Anthony Watkins filed a pro se appellant’s brief. His brief consisted of the following statements: In this brief I, Quinn Anthony Watkins, therefore mentioned as Appellant, will explain the error made in the trial court. 1. The trial court err[ed] by ruling in favor of the Appellee despite the fact that Appellee failed to provide that the 3 day notice was signed & delivered to by Appellant. See Texas Property Code 24.005. 04-24-00557-CV In conclusion I am requesting that this ruling is overturned & the case dismissed due to the error made by the trial judge. In this court’s order of July 23, 2026, we explained that Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 specifies that appellate briefs are required to contain, among other things, (1) a complete list of all parties to the appealed-from order and names of counsel; (2) a table of contents; (3) an index of authorities; (4) a statement of the case that states concisely the nature of the case, supported by record references; (5) the issues or points presented; (6) a statement of facts setting forth the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented, supported by record references; (7) a summary of the argument; (8) an argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record; and (9) a prayer for relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j). We further explained that an appellant’s brief must also be accompanied by an appendix containing copies of the documents required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k). We noted that appellant’s brief did not comply with any of these requirements. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k). Substantial compliance with Rule 38 is sufficient. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9. However, if Rule 38 has been flagrantly violated, this court may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). Therefore, in our July 23, 2026 order, we warned appellant that if another noncomplying brief was filed, we would strike appellant’s brief, prohibit him from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. Id. We further explained that if an appellant fails to timely file a brief, we may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). -2- 04-24-00557-CV Finally, we explained that appellant’s brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 and 9.5 in that the brief did not include a certificate of compliance or a certificate of service. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(d). While it is true that pro se pleadings and briefs are to be liberally construed, a pro se litigant is still required to comply with the law and rules of procedure. See Shull v. United Parcel Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 52-53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). Because appellant’s brief did not comply with Rules 9.4, 9.5, and 38.1, we ordered appellant to file an amended brief that complies with Rules 9.4, 9.5, and 38.1 no later than August 24, 2026. We warned appellant that if he failed to timely file a brief that complies with the aforementioned rules, this court would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); Smith v. DC Civ. Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) (striking appellant’s amended brief for failing to comply with Rule 38.1 after being ordered to do so, prohibiting appellant from filing another amended brief, and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution). Appellant has not filed an amended brief as ordered. Therefore, we strike appellant’s brief, prohibit him from filing another brief, and proceed as if appellant failed to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); Ausbie v. Salvation Army, Inc., No. 02-19-00240-CV, 2020 WL 479281, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 30, 2020, no pet.) (striking appellant’s brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution because appellant failed “to file an amended brief despite being given the opportunity to do so”). We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). PER CURIAM -3-