Send this document to a colleague

Close
This Window

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOHN FOX,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO, THOMAS MAGUIRE, WILLIAM STERN,
MARIO D'AGOSTINO, SAM JARVIS, AND JOHN DOE(S),

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-08-00092-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2003-4386)

O P I N I
O N

John Fox, appearing pro se, appeals from an order dismissing
his suit against the City of El Paso, Thomas Maguire, William Stern, Mario
D'Agostino, Sam Jarvis, and John Doe(s). Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Appellant (Fox) filed his original petition on October
2, 2003 alleging that the City of El Paso, and the named employees of the
City of El Paso committed various torts or intentional torts. These torts
included trespass, illegal search, and negligence in connection with
Appellees' utilization of various municipal codes. Appellees filed their
first amended answer accompanied by a plea to the jurisdiction of the
court. Pertinent to the matters raised on appeal, it invoked sovereign
immunity, and another contention that Fox had failed to comply with the
Texas Local Government Code regarding judicial review condemnation actions
thereby causing the court to lack subject-matter jurisdiction regarding
Fox's claims.

A hearing was held on Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction. The court
issued a judgment granting the plea to the jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

Fox asserts the following issues:

1. Is dismissal with no explanatory opinion valid?

2. How can a cause of action be considered dismissed when it was by
style of the order (by inaccuracies and consolidated status)
undismissed?

3. Are there now, by legally relevant appearances; no jurisdictional
limitations, to cause of actions?

4. Are public officials subject to due process requirements?

5. Do the Courts have an unbiased obligation to prevent abusive
opposing representation by prohibiting tax paid representation to Texas
public officials civilly accused by official abuse victims in pro se and
not applying standards of professional integrity to opposing counsel,
efforts to take disastrously unfair advantage of pro se inexperienced
ignorance?

6. Does the court's unbiased obligation to enforce effective assistance
of counsel include allowing litigants in pro se (for lack of
legal assistance availability) no provision for unlicensed legal help in
attempting to access justice nor allow any procedural preference for the
ineffectiveness of the helpless pro se litigant?

7. Can intervention access to justice be discretionarily denied without
cause of hearing?

8. As the professional opposition seems to assert, and exhibited by
dismissals; are court justiciability requirements and judicial review no
longer applicable to likely cases of official abuse?

Initially, we must address Appellees' contention that Fox has waived
his issues on appeal because Fox has failed to provide this Court with an
adequate discussion of the facts and authorities to maintain an argument.
We agree.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that appellate briefs
"contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." Tex.R.App.P.
38.1(i); Wil-Roye Inv. Co. II v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 142
S.W.3d 393, 411 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.).

In this instance, as Fox is appealing from the granting of Appellees'
plea to the jurisdiction, Fox must allege facts that affirmatively
establish subject-matter jurisdiction, and if the case is dismissed on
that basis, he must, on appeal, attack all independent grounds that fully
support the adverse trial ruling. Fox v. Maguire, 224 S.W.3d 304,
307 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2005, pet. denied). If an appellant fails to do so,
the reviewing court must affirm.

With the possible exception of Issue No. Six,
(1) Fox cites no legal authority, and he does not provide
any pertinent legal analysis attacking the court's determination that it
did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the cause.

Fox filed a reply brief in which he raised four new issues apart from
those urged in this initial brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure do not
allow an appellant to raise an issue in a reply brief which was not
included in his original brief. Tex.R.App.P. 38.3. Consequently, Fox has
failed to preserve these assertions for review. See Few v. Few,
271 S.W.3d 341, 347 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2008, pet. denied); Gray v.
Woodville Health Care Center, 225 S.W.3d 613, 620 (Tex.App.--El Paso
2006, pet. denied). Accordingly, all of Appellant's issues are
overruled.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

July 22, 2009

Before McClure, J., Rivera, J., and Macias, Judge

1. In this issue Fox
cites some authority for his contention the appellate courts must excuse
the lack of expertise and experience of pro se litigants, and
must deal with them more favorably than they would with licensed attorneys
in order to avoid the exploitation by such attorneys. However, in order to
prevent unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel, pro se
litigants in Texas are held to the same standards as licensed
attorneys and are required to comply with applicable laws and procedural
rules. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005); Fox
v. Wardy, 234 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2007, rev. dism'd
w.o.j.).