MAHMOOD M. YOONESSI, M.D., Appellant v. DR. BRIAN D'ARCY, KALEIDA HEALTH SYSTEMS, CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, DR. STEVE GOODNAUGH, TIMOTHY J. TROST, PETER SULLIVAN, AND JULIE SHERIDAN, Appellees

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 5th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » MAHMOOD M. YOONESSI, M.D., Appellant v. DR. BRIAN D'ARCY, KALEIDA HEALTH SYSTEMS, CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, DR. STEVE GOODNAUGH, TIMOTHY J. TROST, PETER SULLIVAN, AND JULIE SHERIDAN, Appellees

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 05-07-00689-CV

Case Date: 11/25/2008

Plaintiff: MAHMOOD M. YOONESSI, M.D., Appellant

Defendant: DR. BRIAN D'ARCY, KALEIDA HEALTH SYSTEMS, CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, DR. STEVE GOODNAUGH, TIMOTHY J.

Preview:MAHMOOD M. YOONESSI, M.D., Appellant v. DR.
BRIAN D'ARCY, KALEIDA HEALTH SYSTEMS,
CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, DR. STEVE
GOODNAUGH, TIMOTHY J. TROST, PETER
SULLIVAN, AND JULIE SHERIDAN, Appellees
Affirmed, Opinion Issued November 25, 2008
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-07-00689-CV
MAHMOOD M. YOONESSI, M.D., Appellant
V.
DR. BRIAN D'ARCY, KALEIDA HEALTH SYSTEMS, CATHOLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS, DR. STEVE
GOODNAUGH, TIMOTHY J. TROST, PETER SULLIVAN, AND JULIE SHERIDAN, Appellees
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 05-05532-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Richter, and Francis
Opinion By Justice Francis
Mahmood M. Yoonessi, a pro se litigant, filed interlocutory appeals complaining of the trial court's rulings with
respect to the seven above named appellees. In his docketing statement and his appellate brief, appellant additionally
lists as appellees the following individuals: The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stephen L. Tatum,
Philip Di Saia, M.D., William Dillon, M.D., Daniel C. Kredentser, M.D., Lawrence Sternberg, M.D., M. Steven Piver,
M.D., Shashikant Lele, M.D., Antonia Novello, M.D., Eliot Spitzer, Edward Spain, Peter R. Dolan, Kenneth
Swenerton, M.D., John Choate, M.D. and his Estate Executor, and William McGuire. The record before this Court
does not contain a notice of appeal for any of these individuals and, with the exception of Philip Di Saia and William
McGuire, the record does not contain orders disposing of these individuals. Because there is no appealable order and
timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Stephen L. Tatum, William Dillon, M.D., Daniel C. Kredentser, M.D., Lawrence Sternberg, M.D., M. Steven Piver,
M.D., Shashikant Lele, M.D., Antonia Novello, M.D., Eliot Spitzer, Edward Spain, Peter R. Dolan, Kenneth
Swenerton, M.D., John Choate, M.D. and his Estate Executor. See Lab. Corp of Am. v. Mid-Town Surgical Ctr., Inc.,
16 S.W.3d 527, 529 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2000, no pet.) (timely filed notice of appeal is requirement for appellate court's
jurisdiction). And, although the record contains the trial court's orders granting Philip Di Saia's motion for special
appearance and William McGuire's motion for summary judgment, appellant did not file a notice of appeal as to either
of these individuals. Thus, we lack jurisdiction over these two individuals as well. See id.
Having determined which parties are properly before us, we now turn to appellant's brief. Texas Rule of
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/05-07-00689-cv-5.html[8/20/2013 6:44:39 PM]

Appellate Procedure 38.1 provides that an appellant's brief “must state concisely all issues or points presented for
review.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e). The brief “must state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues
or points presented “ and be supported by record references. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f). And the brief “must contain a
succinct, clear, and accurate statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief” and “must contain a clear and
concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and the record.” Tex. R. App. P.
38.1(g), (h). An appendix is not a substitute for a clerk's record nor are citations to the appendix a substitute for
citations to the record. In the Interest of L.M.M., No. 05-07-00789-CV, 2008 WL 2454680, *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas,
June 19, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). On appeal, a pro se litigant must properly present his case. Strange v. Continental
Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 677 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, pet. denied). Although we construe liberally pro se pleadings
and briefs, a pro se litigant is required to comply with applicable rules and is held to the same standards as licensed
attorneys. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 677. A pro se
appellant bears the burden of discussing his assertions of error and pointing the appellate court to the portions of the
record that support his complaints. Barham v. Turner Constr. Co., 803 S.W.2d 731, 740 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990, writ
denied). This Court has no duty to search a voluminous record without guidance from the appellant to determine
whether an assertion of reversible error is valid. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge v. Jackson, 732 S.W.2d
407, 412 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (en banc).
Appellant filed his original brief February 22, 2008. In a letter dated February 27, 2008, the Court informed
appellant his brief did not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it failed to
comply with rule 38.1(b), (d), (g), (h), (i), and (j). Appellant was given ten days to correct the deficiencies. Appellant
filed his amended brief March 10, 2008 which again fails to comply with the rule 38.1. Appellant's fifteen issues are
unclear and, at best, confusing. Most fail to complain of trial court error and instead, appear to ask this Court to make
fact findings on issues unrelated to the interlocutory orders in this case. His statement of facts does not relate to the
pleadings filed or the procedural events that occurred in the trial court. Likewise, his summary of the argument
addresses events occurring in other courts and does not provide a “succinct, clear, and accurate statement” of the
subsequent arguments made in his brief. His argument consists of conclusions and does not provide record citations or
proper, meaningful analysis in support of his contentions. We cannot remedy deficiencies in a litigant's brief and argue
his case for him. Strange, 126 S.W.3d at 678. Under these circumstances, we conclude appellant has waived any
complaints regarding the trial court's rulings. We overrule appellant's issues.
We affirm the trial court's interlocutory orders.
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
070689F.P05
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/05-07-00689-cv-5.html[8/20/2013 6:44:39 PM]

Download 05-07-00689-cv-5.pdf