Opinion
No. 10-03-252-CV
Opinion delivered and filed December 17, 2003.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Brazos County, Texas, Trial Court # 53803-Cv.
Appeal dismissed.
Tommy L. Jones, Pro Se, Snyder, TX, for Appellant.
Norbert C. Mahnke, Asst. Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Appellee.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Judge STROTHER (Sitting by Assignment).
Ralph T. Strother, Judge of the 19th District Court of McLennan County, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to section 74.003(h) of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.003(h) (Vernon Supp. 2004).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tommy Leon Jones filed suit to adjudicate his paternity of T.S.J. The Attorney General filed an identical suit one year later. The trial court sua sponte consolidated the two lawsuits. Jones seeks to appeal the consolidation order.
This Court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal only when expressly provided by statute. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.3d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); Chase Manhattan Bank v. Bowles, 52 S.W.3d 871, 878 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). No statute expressly authorizes the interlocutory appeal of an order to consolidate separate lawsuits.
The Clerk of this Court notified the parties by letter dated August 14, 2003 that this appeal appears subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. That notice read:
Pursuant to Rules 42.3 and 44.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, you are notified that this cause is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it appears the consolidation order is not appealable. Therefore, the Court may dismiss this appeal unless, within ten days of the date of this letter, a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal.
Jones has filed a response in which he contends that the second parentage suit and the consolidation order are barred by collateral estoppel. However, this allegation standing alone does not provide any statutory basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.