Opinion issued September 11, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-26-00276-CV
ERIK WILSON, Appellant
V.
KIMBERLY BROADLEY, Appellee
On Appeal from the 461st District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 120880-F
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Erik Wilson, proceeding pro se, challenges the trial court’s
February 17, 2026 order denying his bill of review.
We dismiss the appeal.
On May 6, 2026, Wilson filed his appellant’s brief with this Court. On July
28, 2026, this Court notified Wilson that his appellant’s brief did not comply with
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because, among other things, it did not
properly identify parties and counsel; contain an appropriate table of contents; “state
concisely the nature of the case,” “the course of [the] proceedings,” and “the trial
court’s disposition of the case,” “supported by record references”; “include a
statement explaining why oral argument should or should not be permitted”; “state
concisely all issues or points presented for review”; “state concisely and without
argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented,” “supported by record
references”; “contain a succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments
made in the body of the brief”; “contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”; or
include an appendix with the necessary contents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a), (b),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k).
Thus, on July 28, 2026, the Court struck Wilson’s May 6, 2026 brief and
ordered him to file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied with the Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure within thirty days of the date of the Court’s order. The Court
informed Wilson that if he did not file a corrected appellant’s brief that complied
with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, it would strike his corrected brief,
prohibit him from filing another, proceed as if he had failed to file an appellant’s
2
brief, and dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b),
43.2(f); see also Tucker v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., No. 02-19-00221-CV, 2020
WL 3969586, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(striking amended brief and dismissing appeal for want of prosecution where
appellant ordered to file amended brief but amended brief also failed to comply with
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure); Tyurin v. Hirsch & Westheimer, P.C., No.
01-17-00014-CV, 2017 WL 4682191, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct.
19, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). The Court also informed Wilson that if he
failed to timely file his corrected brief, we would dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f). Wilson did not timely file his corrected brief.
Because Wilson did not timely file his corrected brief, we dismiss the appeal
for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3, 43.2(f); Bennett v.
Jenkins, No. 01-21-00557-CV, 2022 WL 3268531, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Aug. 11, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); Orozco v. Reserve at Pecan Valley
Apartments, No. 04-21-00447-CV, 2022 WL 848363, at *1 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio Mar. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re W.A.F., No. 04-19-00723-CV,
2020 WL 5913842, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 7, 2020, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (after appellate court struck appellant’s brief for failure to comply with Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, appellant failed to file amended brief as ordered,
and appellate court dismissed appeal for want of prosecution); see also Averett v.
3
Huffman Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 01-19-00482-CV, 2020 WL 717543, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 13, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When an appellant
fails to file a brief, we may dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution.”). We dismiss
any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson.
4