Jerry Ramon v. Dulce Caridad Barajas Martinez, 05-25-00414-CV, February 19, 2026.
Synopsis
The Dallas Court of Appeals reaffirmed its strict adherence to briefing requirements, dismissing a pro se appeal after the appellant failed to cure fundamental procedural deficiencies under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. The Court emphasized that while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, non-lawyers are held to the same standard as licensed attorneys to ensure procedural parity and prevent unfair tactical advantages.
Relevance to Family Law
In the landscape of Texas family law, practitioners frequently encounter pro se litigants on the opposing side, particularly in high-conflict custody or post-decree enforcement actions. This opinion serves as a critical reminder that the “liberal construction” afforded to pro se parties has a definitive ceiling; it does not excuse the failure to provide a record-supported narrative or a cognizable legal argument. For the family law litigator, this case provides the necessary precedent to move for dismissal when an unrepresented ex-spouse attempts to prolong litigation through a procedurally deficient appellate brief.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The appellant, Jerry Ramon, sought to challenge a dismissal order from the trial court. Upon filing his initial brief on June 25, 2026, the Fifth Court of Appeals identified several systemic failures regarding the brief’s form and substance. Specifically, the brief lacked a concise statement of the case, a statement of facts supported by record references, and a substantive argument containing appropriate legal and record citations. The Clerk of the Court issued a formal notice on July 7, 2025, detailing these deficiencies and providing Ramon an opportunity to file an amended brief. Rather than curing the defects, the appellant essentially requested that the Court submit the appeal on the original, non-compliant brief.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether an appellant’s failure to comply with the briefing requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1—specifically the requirement for record references and a proper certificate of compliance—warrants involuntary dismissal under Rule 42.3(c) after notice of the deficiencies has been provided.
Rules Applied
The Court relied heavily on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which dictates the mandatory contents of an appellant’s brief, and Rule 42.3(c), which authorizes dismissal when an appellant fails to comply with a court order or the appellate rules. The Court also cited Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.), for the proposition that the judiciary is not tasked with scouring the record to identify facts or legal theories that might support an appellant’s position. Finally, the Court invoked the “same standard” rule from In re E.J.M., No. 05-23-00840-CV, 2025 WL 1909393 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 9, 2025, no pet.), ensuring that pro se litigants do not receive an unfair advantage over represented parties.
Application
The Fifth Court’s application of the law was straightforward and uncompromising. The Court noted that Ramon was given a clear roadmap to compliance via the July 7 deficiency letter. By failing to include record references—which are described as the lifeblood of an appellate brief—the appellant effectively asked the Court to perform the role of an advocate. The Court reasoned that because the brief failed to provide “direct references to the record that are precise in locating the fact asserted,” it was fundamentally impossible to review the merits of the appeal. Because the appellant chose to stand on a deficient brief rather than attempting to meet the standards of Rule 38.1, the Court determined that the exercise of its dismissal power under Rule 42.3 was the only appropriate remedy to maintain the integrity of the appellate process.
Holding
The Court held that the appeal must be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). This holding was predicated on the appellant’s failure to comply with the court’s notice regarding the briefing deficiencies and his failure to adhere to the mandatory requirements of Rule 38.1.
The Court further clarified that the dismissal was not a “technicality” but a necessary consequence of the appellant’s failure to provide a brief that would allow the court to conduct a meaningful review without overstepping its neutral role.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case reinforces a defensive strategy against pro se appellants. When an unrepresented party files a “brief” that is essentially a stream-of-consciousness grievance, the appellee’s counsel should not immediately jump to briefing the merits. Instead, counsel should monitor for the Court’s deficiency letter and, if the pro se party fails to cure the defects, be prepared to move for dismissal or suggest that the Court dismiss sua sponte under Rule 42.3. This avoids the client incurring unnecessary fees to respond to an incomprehensible or unsupported argument.
Checklists
Assessing Opposing Pro Se Briefs
- Verify Record References: Check every factual assertion in the Statement of Facts and Argument. If the brief contains zero or sporadic “C.R.” or “R.R.” citations, it is non-compliant under Rule 38.1(g) and (i).
- Examine the Statement of the Case: Ensure the appellant has accurately described the nature of the case and the trial court’s disposition with record support.
- Check for Certification: Confirm the brief includes the mandatory certificate of compliance regarding word count and service under Rule 9.4.
- Monitor Court Correspondence: Keep a close watch on the appellate docket for any “Deficiency Letter” issued by the Clerk.
Avoiding Briefing Dismissal (For the Practitioner)
- The “Pinpoint” Rule: Ensure every factual assertion is followed by a specific volume and page number reference to the Clerk’s Record or Reporter’s Record.
- The “Notice and Cure” Window: If a deficiency letter is received, treat it as a jurisdictional warning. Do not rely on the court’s “liberal construction” of your client’s position; file a fully compliant amended brief immediately.
- Jurisdictional Statements: Always include a concise statement of the court’s jurisdiction to ensure the appeal is not vulnerable on other procedural grounds.
Citation
Jerry Ramon v. Dulce Caridad Barajas Martinez, No. 05-25-00414-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in a Texas divorce or custody case as a powerful procedural shield. In family law, pro se appellants often use the appellate process to delay the sale of a marital home, the commencement of child support, or the modification of possession schedules. Ramon clarifies that the Dallas Court of Appeals will not tolerate “briefs” that are merely narratives of perceived unfairness without record-backed legal error. If a pro se litigant fails to cite the record to show how the trial court abused its discretion in a SAPCR or property division, the appeal is dead on arrival. Practitioners should use this case to argue that the appellate court lacks the authority to “find” the appellant’s issues in the record, thereby forcing a dismissal and securing the finality of the trial court’s judgment.
~~d0852cee-a46e-40de-86f3-f53f54454d7d~~
Share this content: