Hector Garcia Jr. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. D/B/A SpaceX, and Lauren Elizabeth Krueger

NUMBER 13-23-00422-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG HECTOR GARCIA JR., Appellant,

v. SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. D/B/A SPACEX AND LAUREN ELIZABETH KRUEGER, Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE 444TH DISTRICT COURT OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Cron

This cause is currently before the Court on motions filed by appellant Hector Garcia Jr., who is proceeding pro se, and appellees Space Exploration Technologies Corp. d/b/a SpaceX and Lauren Elizabeth Krueger. Appellant has filed a “Motion to Supplement *2 Clerk[’]s and Reporter[’]s Record,” and appellees have filed a “Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Opposition to Appellant’s Motions to Supplement Record.” Appellant has asked to supplement the record with various items that he has attempted to file as exhibits to his motion, and appellees seek to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, and in the alternative, deny appellant’s motion to supplement. Appellant has filed a response to appellees’ motion to dismiss referencing extrinsic fraud, bias and prejudice, false statements, malicious abuse of process, obstruction, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In his response, appellant seeks leave to allow him to amend his “complaint.”

The Court, having examined and fully considered these motions, is of the opinion that appellant’s motion to supplement the record should be denied, and appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Appellant has not complied with our November 15, 2025 order to supplement the record, has failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure pertaining to securing and filing the record, see TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5, 34.6, and has failed to provide the Court with an advisory regarding the status of his appeal as directed. In fact, appellant has not even filed a copy of the final judgment rendered in this case.

It is well established that a pro se litigant must comply with all applicable procedural rules. Smart v. Prime Mortgage & Escrow, LLC, 659 S.W.3d 155, 160 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. denied); Manning v. Johnson, 642 S.W.3d 871, 884 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2021, no pet.); Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593 S.W.3d 398, 401 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.). A pro se litigant is required to properly present his case on appeal just as the litigant is required to do at the trial court. See Smart, 659 S.W.3d at 160; Manning, *3 642 S.W.3d at 884. We may not apply different standards for litigants appearing without advice of counsel because, otherwise, pro se litigants would be given an unfair advantage over those litigants represented by counsel. Smart, 659 S.W.3d at 161; Amrhein, 593 S.W.3d at 401.

This Court has the authority to dismiss an appeal because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c); Smith v. DC Civil Constr., LLC, 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion to supplement the record and his motion for leave to amend his complaint, we grant appellees’ motion to dismiss, and we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

JENNY CRON Justice

Delivered and filed on the 29th day of January, 2026.