Memorandum Opinion by Justice Breedlove, 05-25-00001-CV, January 30, 2026.
On appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.9(a) after the appellant failed to cure pervasive briefing deficiencies. Despite being provided notice and an opportunity to amend, the appellant’s submissions lacked record citations, alphabetical indices, and the substantive legal analysis required to present a reviewable issue.
Relevance to Family Law
In the Texas family law landscape, trial practitioners frequently encounter pro se litigants—whether as former spouses in a modification suit or an opposing parent in an enforcement action. While the judiciary often extends “liberal construction” to pro se filings, this opinion reaffirms that the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure are not mere suggestions. For the family law practitioner, this case provides a procedural shield: when a pro se opponent appeals a favorable custody or property judgment but fails to anchor their arguments in the record or the law, the appeal is subject to summary dismissal. It underscores that “pro se” is not a license to circumvent the briefing standards that maintain the integrity of the adversarial process.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant Dominic Omiagbo sought to appeal a judgment from a Collin County District Court. Upon filing his initial brief in May 2025, the Fifth Court of Appeals identified systemic non-compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. The Clerk issued a formal notice in June 2025, specifically enumerating six categories of defects: the absence of a table of contents, the lack of an alphabetical index of authorities, a failure to provide a concise statement of the case or facts supported by record references, a lack of citations to the record within the argument itself, and an improper certificate of compliance. The Court provided the appellant ten days to file an amended brief that corrected these specific deficiencies. Although the appellant did file an amended brief in July 2025, the Court found that the second attempt remained functionally deficient and failed to address the core requirements of the appellate rules.
Issues Decided
The Court considered whether a pro se appellant’s persistent failure to comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 38.1, after being given express notice of the defects and an opportunity to cure, warrants the dismissal of the appeal.
Rules Applied
The Court relied primarily on Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.1 and 38.9. Rule 38.1 dictates the necessary components of an appellant’s brief, including the requirement for substantive legal argument supported by citations to the record and authorities. Rule 38.9(a) permits the Court to strike a non-compliant brief and, if the party fails to cure the defects, to dismiss the appeal. The Court also applied the long-standing precedent of Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, which holds that pro se litigants must comply with all applicable rules of procedure and are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys to prevent an unfair advantage.
Application
The Court’s application of the law focused on the fundamental purpose of an appellate brief: to acquaint the Court with the issues and provide a roadmap for decision-making. Justice Breedlove noted that while the Court will “liberally construe” pro se briefs, that leniency has a ceiling. The appellant’s amended brief failed to provide a concise articulation of the issues or specific arguments supported by citations to the record. The Court emphasized that “sweeping statements of general law” and a lack of substantive analysis offer nothing for the appellate court to review. Because the appellant was warned of the specific defects and failed to rectify them in his amended filing, the Court determined that the brief failed to meet the minimum threshold required to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to review the merits of the case.
Holding
The Court held that the appellant’s failure to provide a brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure necessitated dismissal. The Court found that even under a liberal construction, the amended brief did not adequately acquaint the Court with the issues or present an argument that would enable a decision on the merits.
The Court further held that because the appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to cure the deficiencies and failed to do so, dismissal was the appropriate remedy under Rule 38.9(a).
Practical Application
For family law litigators, this case is a reminder to monitor the clerk’s correspondence closely when an opposing party goes pro se on appeal. If the Clerk issues a notice of briefing deficiency, the appellee should not rush to file a response on the merits. Instead, practitioners should wait to see if the amended brief cures the defects. If the amended brief remains a collection of “sweeping statements” or grievances without record citations, the appellee can move for dismissal or rely on the court’s own motion to dismiss, thereby saving the client the significant expense of drafting a substantive response to a deficient brief.
Checklists
Evaluating an Opposing Pro Se Brief
- Verify the existence of a Table of Contents and an Alphabetical Index of Authorities.
- Ensure every factual assertion in the “Statement of Facts” and “Argument” sections is followed by a specific reference to the Clerk’s Record (CR) or Reporter’s Record (RR).
- Check for a “Statement of the Case” that outlines the trial court’s disposition.
- Confirm the presence of a proper Certificate of Compliance regarding word count.
Responding to Non-Compliant Briefs
- Monitor the Appellate Clerk’s notices for any “Deficiency Letters.”
- If the appellant fails to cure defects within the provided window, consider filing a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 38.9(a).
- In the Appellee’s Brief (if filed), lead with a “Waiver” argument, asserting that the appellant has presented nothing for review due to briefing inadequacies.
Citation
Dominic Omiagbo v. Gary Whitcomb, President of Public Employees Credit Union and Public Employees Credit Union, A Texas Corporation, No. 05-25-00001-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 30, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: View Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In high-conflict Texas divorce and custody litigation, the pro se appeal is often utilized as a tool for “litigation by attrition.” A spouse may file a notice of appeal to delay the finality of a property division or to harass the primary conservator. Omiagbo serves as a vital precedent to cut these tactics short. By enforcing the “same standard as counsel” rule from Mansfield State Bank, the Court ensures that a pro se appellant cannot force an appellee to incur thousands of dollars in legal fees to “decode” a rambling, uncited brief. If the pro se appellant cannot navigate the “mandatory” requirements of Rule 38.1—specifically the requirement to cite the record—the appeal should be dead on arrival. This ruling is a strategic asset for the family law attorney to ensure that the finality of trial court orders is not held hostage by a party who refuses to follow the rules of the road.
~~856aaa9d-0ed1-446b-804e-532c3dff2e6c~~
Share this content: