Summary
explaining appellate court did not have jurisdiction because local administrative judge's order was not appealable order and appellant had not filed petition for writ of mandamus within thirty days of order
Summary of this case from Moody v. Success Holding, LLCOpinion
NO. 01-13-00606-CV
2013-10-01
TOMMY L. PARKER, Appellant v. RON MCLAURIN, JESSE MENDEZ, AND VILSEN SALINAS, Appellees
On Appeal from the 165th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2010-51822
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Tommy L. Parker, attempts to appeal from the local administrative judge's denial of appellant's request to place his previously dismissed case on the court's trial docket. We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant has been twice adjudicated as a vexatious litigant. Appellant sought permission from the local administrative judge to have his previously dismissed case placed on the court's trial docket. The local administrative judge denied appellant's request for permission, and appellant filed a notice of appeal.
"A decision of a local administrative judge denying a litigant permission to file . . . litigation . . . is not grounds for appeal, except that the litigant may apply for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals not later than the 30th day after the date of the decision." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(c) (West Supp. 2012). In this case, appellant did not timely apply for a writ of mandamus with this Court or file an appellate brief that the Court could construe as a petition for writ of mandamus. Further, the Court is unable to consider appellant's notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus because it does not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See Sandoval v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 13-10-00249-CV, 2010 WL 1804965, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 4, 2010, no pet.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Therefore, because appellant may not appeal the local administrative judge's order and did not apply for a writ of mandamus within 30 days of the local administrative judge's decision, the Court is without jurisdiction over this case. See Ruston v. State, No. 05-13-00152-CV, 2013 WL 3943124, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 31, 2013, pet. filed); Reeves v. State, No. 05-12-01142-CV, 2013 WL 1249713, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 13, 2013, no pet.).
We determine this case under former section 11.102(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because this action was filed prior to September 1, 2013, the effective date of the amended statute. See Act of June 29, 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3, § 9.03, sec. 11.102, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 5206, 5247-48, amended by Act of May 25, 2013, 83d Leg., R.S., ch. 1224, § 5, sec. 11.102, 2013 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 3080, 3081-82 (West).
After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction, appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.