What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not pay the filing fee or respond to multiple clerk notices, showing a failure to pursue the appeal.

Who is affected by this decision?

The appellant, Genie Delia Cavazos, is affected because her appeal is dismissed; the appellee is not harmed and its pending motion to dismiss was rendered moot.

The dismissal ends this appeal in the appellate court; the appellant may need to consult counsel to determine if any further relief is available, such as reopening the case or seeking other remedies in the trial court.

Why was the appeal dismissed instead of being heard on the merits?

Because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with procedural rules—specifically, not paying required fees and not fixing defects in the notice of appeal—despite multiple notices from the clerk.

Can this dismissal be appealed further?

Options may be limited; the appellant should promptly consult an attorney about whether any motion for rehearing, reinstatement, or other post-judgment relief is available under the rules.

Genie Cavazos v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, an Officer of the United States

Docket 13-25-00537-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherDismissed

Filed: Apr 9, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 13-25-00537-CV

Appeal from an alleged October 16, 2025 county-court-at-law order, dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with clerk's notices

Summary

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District dismissed Genie Delia Cavazos’s pro se appeal for want of prosecution after she repeatedly failed to comply with the clerk’s requests to pay the filing fee and to cure defects in her notice of appeal. The court sent five notices between October 28, 2025 and March 19, 2026 but received no response. Because Cavazos did not diligently prosecute the appeal or follow procedural rules, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the appellee’s motion to dismiss as moot.

Issues Decided

Whether the appellant diligently prosecuted her appeal by responding to clerk’s notices and paying required fees
Whether the appellate court may dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with clerk’s notices

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the appellate rules that require timely fee payment and correction of defects in the notice of appeal and on precedent that pro se litigants must follow procedural rules. After five notices over several months requesting fee payment or correction, the appellant did not respond, showing a failure to diligently prosecute. Under the applicable rules, that failure justified dismissal, making the appellee’s pending motion to dismiss moot.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2), 34.6(b)(1), 42.3(b), 42.3(c), 43.2(f)
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978)

Parties

Appellant: Genie Delia Cavazos
Appellee: Secretary of US Department of Veterans Affairs
Judge: Ysmael D. Fonseca, Justice

Key Dates

Notice of Appeal Filed: 2025-10-23
Alleged Trial Court Order: 2025-10-16
First Clerk Notice: 2025-10-28
Subsequent Clerk Notices: 2025-11-05
Subsequent Clerk Notices 2: 2025-11-17
Subsequent Clerk Notices 3: 2026-01-09
Subsequent Clerk Notices 4: 2026-03-19
Opinion Delivered and Filed: 2026-04-09

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an attorney promptly
Speak with appellate counsel to determine if a motion for reinstatement, rehearing, or other relief is timely and appropriate under Texas appellate rules.
2
Check deadlines and procedural options
Determine any short time limits for seeking reinstatement or filing in the trial court and gather proof of any reason for noncompliance (e.g., inability to pay).
3
If relief is available, act quickly
Prepare and file any required motions or affidavits immediately, and comply with any fee or notice requirements to avoid future dismissal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not pay the filing fee or respond to multiple clerk notices, showing a failure to pursue the appeal.
Who is affected by this decision?: The appellant, Genie Delia Cavazos, is affected because her appeal is dismissed; the appellee is not harmed and its pending motion to dismiss was rendered moot.
What happens next?: The dismissal ends this appeal in the appellate court; the appellant may need to consult counsel to determine if any further relief is available, such as reopening the case or seeking other remedies in the trial court.
Why was the appeal dismissed instead of being heard on the merits?: Because the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with procedural rules—specifically, not paying required fees and not fixing defects in the notice of appeal—despite multiple notices from the clerk.
Can this dismissal be appealed further?: Options may be limited; the appellant should promptly consult an attorney about whether any motion for rehearing, reinstatement, or other post-judgment relief is available under the rules.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

NUMBER 13-25-00537-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

GENIE DELIA CAVAZOS, Appellant,

SECRETARY OF US DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AN
OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES, Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 9
OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On October 23, 2025, pro se

appellant Genie Delia Cavazos filed her notice of appeal seeking to appeal an alleged

trial court order from October 16, 2025.

The Clerk of the Court sent letters to appellant on October 28, 2025, November 5,
2025, November 17, 2025, January 9, 2026, and March 19, 2026, either regarding

appellant’s failure to pay the proper filing fee or an apparent defect in the notice of appeal.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(2), 34.6(b)(1), 42.3(c). Despite five notices, appellant has

continually failed to comply with the Court’s requests by not remitting the filing fee,

amending her notice of appeal, or curing the apparent defect; as of today appellant has

not responded to the clerk’s notices. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as

licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure.

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).

The Court, having reviewed the appellate record, is of the opinion that appellant

has failed to diligently prosecute her appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we

hereby dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with notices

from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). Accordingly, appellee’s pending motion to dismiss appeal is

denied as moot.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
9th day of April, 2026.