Steve Washington v. STR Arlington, LLC
Date Filed2023-12-12
Docket01-23-00754-CV
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
Opinion issued December 12, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-23-00754-CV
———————————
STEVE WASHINGTON, Appellant
V.
STR ARLINGTON, LLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Tarrant County, Texas1
Trial Court Case No. 2023-001785-1
1
Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas
transferred this appeal to this Court. See Misc. Docket No. 23–9079 (Tex. Sept. 26,
2023); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases);
TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Steve Washington, appearing pro se, filed a notice of appeal from
the trial court’s August 17, 2023 final judgment. Appellee, STR Arlington, LLC,
filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, asserting that appellant
had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the
clerk’s record.
We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Appellant has neither established indigence for purposes of costs nor paid or
made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record. See TEX.
R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a), 37.3(b). On October 17, 2023, appellant was
notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal if he did not submit written evidence
that he had paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for the preparation of the clerk’s
record by November 16, 2023. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant
did not adequately respond to the Court’s notice.
On November 22, 2023, appellee filed its motion to dismiss the appeal. In the
motion, appellee notes that appellant had not responded to the Clerk of this Court’s
October 17, 2023 notice and “[p]ayment for the clerk’s record ha[d] not been made
nor arranged.” Further, more than ten days have passed since appellee’s motion to
dismiss was filed, and appellant has not responded. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).
2
Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal for want of
prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions
are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justice Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.
3