law-pro-se
Although a layperson has the right to represent himself, those without a license to practice law have no
right to represent others. Jimison by Parker v. Mann, 957 S.W.2d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
1997, no writ).
Paselk v. Rabun, 293 S.W.3d 600, 605 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (holding notice of
appeal filed by one pro se litigant on behalf of himself and second pro se litigant, who did not sign the
notice, was not proper as to non-signing litigant and dismissing second litigant’s appeal for want of
jurisdiction); see also Tex. R. App. P. 9.1(b) (“A party not represented by counsel must sign any
document that the party files. . . .”).
We note that the fact that [appellant] was proceeding pro se for a portion of the time does not excuse
his failure to preserve error. Weaver v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 942 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 1997, no pet.) (stating “[a] party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable
procedural rules” and is held to same standards as licensed attorney).
SELF-REPRESENTATION AND PRO SE APPEALS
Though Smith is a pro se litigant, she is held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with
applicable substantive laws and rules of procedure. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184
(Tex. 1978); LaGoye v. Victoria Wood Condominium Ass'n, 112 S.W.3d 777, 787 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th
Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Any other rule would give the pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is
represented by trial counsel. See Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 184; LaGoye, 112 S.W.3d at 787.
Smith v. Harford Underwriters Ins. Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 6, 2009)(Frost)
(workers compensation appeal by both sides, compensable injury)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Frost
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brock Yates and Frost
14-08-00133-CV Janice Smith v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company
Appeal from 234th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Reese Rondon
Richard v. Dretke (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 7, 2009)(Frost)
(pro se litigants, IFP inmate suit dismissal, frivolous finding)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Frost
Before Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce)
14-08-00714-CV Anthony Joseph Richard v. Douglas Dretke, Et Al.
Appeal from 349th District Court of Houston County
Guerrero v. Boyd (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 11, 2008)(Nuchia)(pro se appeal deficient briefing, parties
to the appeal, nonsuited party not appellees, ineffective assistance of counsel)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Nuchia and Higley
01-07-00465-CV Maria Elena Guerrero v. Mark A. Boyd and Control Solutions, Inc.
Appeal from 269th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John Thomas Wooldridge
Bowie v. ASAP Motors (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 9, 2008)(Bland)
(pro se appeal, DWOP dismissal)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Judge Wilson, Justices Jennings and Bland
01-07-00730-CV Kenneth Bowie v. ASAP Motors
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jack Cagle
As a pro se litigant, Bowie is held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See Mansfield State
Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Steffan v. Steffan, 29 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). An appellant’s failure to brief, or to adequately brief, an issue effects a waiver
of that issue on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); Wheeler v. Methodist Hosp., 95 S.W.3d 628, 646 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.).
Conclusion. In light of the misrepresentations in Bowie’s brief concerning the posture of this case, his failure to
present any issue warranting reversal, and his unexplained delay in prosecuting the case, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment dismissing Bowie’s suit for lack of prosecution. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Patterson v. Patterson (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] May 13, 2008)(Anderson)
(divorce, pro se, waiver of jury trial, local rules, attorney's fees)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Anderson
14-07-00487-CV Richard Steven Patterson v. Gwendolyn Elizabeth Patterson
Appeal from 247th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Judge Bonnie Crane Hellums
Edison v. Houston Police Department (HPD) (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 7, 2007)(Bland)
(pro se DWOP)(prisoner suit, pro se, lack of diligence in securing service of citation)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Justices Nuchia, Hanks and Bland
01-06-00552-CV Cedric Christopher Edison v. Houston Police Department, et al
Appeal from 157th District Court of Harris County (Judge Randy Wilson)
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | INDEX TO HOUSTON CASE LAW PAGES |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE