Steven J. Stringfellow v. Hamza Khan

2026-08-27

Summary · law.co

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution where the plaintiff received notice of a show cause hearing, failed to appear, and subsequently failed to file a motion to reinstate within thirty days. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Steven Stringfellow filed suit against Hamza Khan seeking damages and relief based on alleged retaliatory eviction and failure to repair the rental property. The trial court issued a show cause order on November 20, 2024, requiring all parties seeking affirmative relief to appear on December 6, 2024, and explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Stringfellow received proper notice but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing that morning or when the case was called again that afternoon.

Following the no-show, the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. Stringfellow did not file a motion to reinstate within the required thirty-day period, though he did file a notice of appeal ten days after the dismissal. On appeal, Stringfellow argued only that his underlying claims had merit, without addressing his failure to appear or explaining the absence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly provided notice and opportunity to be heard, and that Stringfellow's failure to take corrective action—particularly filing a reinstatement motion—constituted a waiver of any due-process objections to the dismissal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a trial court abuses discretion by dismissing for want of prosecution after plaintiff fails to appear at a noticed hearing
Whether plaintiff waived due-process objections by failing to file a reinstatement motion within thirty days of learning of dismissal
Requirements for proper notice and opportunity to be heard before dismissal for want of prosecution

Procedural posture

This is an appeal from the trial court's dismissal order in a civil suit alleging retaliatory eviction and property damage, brought before the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Texas.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-24-00436-CV

STEVEN J. STRINGFELLOW, Appellant

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.