Dallas Court of Appeals Dismisses Pro Se Appeal for Failure to Comply with Briefing Rules

PSHATOIA LAROSE v. JALEN HURTS, 05-25-00873-CV, February 13, 2026.

On appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County.

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal after the appellant failed to cure pervasive briefing deficiencies under Rule 38.1 following formal notice from the clerk. The court reaffirmed that while pro se briefs are liberally construed, self-represented litigants must adhere to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys to ensure a fair and efficient appellate process.

Relevance to Family Law

In the high-stakes arena of Texas family law, where pro se litigants are increasingly common in divorce and SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship) proceedings, this decision serves as a critical procedural shield for the prevailing party. It underscores that a trial court victory in a family law matter—such as the custody or property division issues typical of the 256th District Court—will not be easily disturbed by non-compliant appellate filings. For practitioners representing the appellee, this case provides a clear roadmap for seeking dismissal when an unrepresented opponent fails to provide a brief that allows for substantive review, ensuring that “liberal construction” is not used as a license to bypass the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The appellant, Pshatoia Larose, sought to challenge a judgment rendered by the 256th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. After filing her initial brief in December 2025, the Fifth Court of Appeals identified a litany of procedural defects under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1. These omissions were fundamental: the brief lacked a complete list of parties, a table of contents indicating subject matter, an alphabetical index of authorities, a statement of the case supported by record references, and a concise statement of the issues. Furthermore, the argument section contained no citations to the record. The court issued a formal notice on December 30, 2025, providing the appellant ten days to file an amended brief and explicitly warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal. The appellant failed to respond or file any corrective briefing by the time the court issued its opinion in February 2026.

Issues Decided

Whether an appeal is subject to dismissal under Rule 38.9(a) when an appellant, after receiving notice of specific briefing deficiencies under Rule 38.1 and a reasonable opportunity to cure, fails to file an amended brief that enables the court to perform a substantive review.

Rules Applied

The court relied on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, which mandates the structural and substantive requirements of an appellant’s brief, and Rule 38.9, which governs the court’s authority to dismiss for formal defects. The court also cited the seminal Texas Supreme Court case Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn and its own precedent in In re N.E.B. to establish that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys. Additionally, the court referenced Bolling v. Farmers Branch ISD to emphasize that appellate review is only available for complaints that are concisely articulated and supported by specific record references and appropriate legal authorities.

Application

The court’s analysis centered on the functional purpose of an appellate brief: to acquaint the court with the issues and present an argument sufficient to enable a decision. In this instance, the appellant’s brief was so structurally and substantively deficient that it “presented nothing for review.” The court noted that while it is obligated to liberally construe pro se filings, it cannot act as an advocate for a party or overlook rules that ensure parity between litigants. Because the appellant was given a specific opportunity to amend and failed to do so, the court determined that the briefing failed to satisfy the threshold requirements of Rule 38. To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would grant pro se litigants an unconstitutional and unfair advantage over parties represented by counsel.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that dismissal was the mandatory remedy under Rule 38.9(a) because the appellant failed to rectify the identified defects after being given notice and an opportunity to cure.

The court further held that even under a liberal construction, a brief that fails to provide substantive analysis or record citations fails to adequately acquaint the court with the issues, thereby precluding any meaningful appellate review.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the importance of procedural vigilance when an opposing party chooses to proceed pro se on appeal. When a non-compliant brief is filed, the appellee should not immediately rush to brief the merits, which may inadvertently waive certain procedural objections. Instead, practitioners should monitor the court’s correspondence for deficiency notices. If the court identifies Rule 38.1 defects, the appellee is often best served by waiting for the appellant’s deadline to cure. If the appellant fails to file a compliant amended brief, a motion to dismiss—or allowing the court to dismiss sua sponte as seen here—is a highly effective and cost-efficient strategy to protect a trial court’s judgment.

Checklists

Identifying Briefing Deficiencies in Pro Se Appeals

• Check for a “Complete List of All Parties” to ensure the court has a clear view of all stakeholders in the trial court’s judgment.
• Verify the Table of Contents contains subject matter headers for each issue, rather than just page numbers.
• Ensure the Index of Authorities is alphabetical and includes page references for every citation.
• Confirm the “Statement of the Case” and “Statement of Facts” are supported by specific citations to the Clerk’s Record (CR) and Reporter’s Record (RR).
• Scrutinize the Argument section for a lack of “clear and concise” legal analysis; sweeping generalities without application to the record are insufficient.

Responding to a Deficient Appellant’s Brief

• Review the Court of Appeals’ deficiency letter to identify which specific subsections of Rule 38.1 the court has flagged.
• Calendar the appellant’s 10-day (or court-ordered) window to file an amended brief.
• If the appellant fails to file an amended brief, evaluate the filing of a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 38.9(a).
• If an amended brief is filed but remains deficient, consider a Motion to Strike the brief or an argument in the Appellee’s Brief that the appellant has waived all issues due to inadequate briefing.

Citation

PSHATOIA LAROSE v. JALEN HURTS, No. 05-25-00873-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 13, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~d8025712-783f-4e68-ab36-90a2fa6f582e~~