Opinion
Appellate case number: 01-13-00606-CV Trial court case number: 2012-51822
08-27-2013
Tommy L. Parker v. Ron McLaurin, Jesse Mendez, and Vilsen Salinas
ORDER
Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County
Appellant, Tommy L. Parker, has filed a "Motion to Change Appellant's Appeal." In his motion, appellant seeks to change his previously filed notice of appeal to "an Appeal by Writ of Mandamus."
Appellant has been adjudicated as a vexatious litigant. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 11, 2013, seeking to appeal a local administrative judge's order denying appellant permission to file litigation. However, "[a] decision of a local administrative judge denying a litigant permission to file a litigation . . . is not grounds for appeal." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.102(c) (West Supp. 2012); see also Ruston v. Tex., No. 05-13-00152-CV, 2013 WL 3943124, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 31, 2013, no pet. h.). Thus, appellant now seeks to convert his notice of appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus.
A litigant seeking review of a local administrative judge's denial of permission to file litigation may apply for a writ of mandamus within 30 days of the date of the local administrative judge's decision. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.102(c); see also In re Potts, 399 S.W.3d 685, 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). However, "petitions filed under § 11.102(c) outside the thirty days do not invoke [the Court's] mandamus jurisdiction," and the Court is unable to address their merits. In re Johnson, 390 S.W.3d 584, 586 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.). In this case, the local administrative judge's decision occurred on June 28, 2013. Appellant was therefore required to file a petition for writ of mandamus no later than 30 days after June 28, 2013. Appellant, however, has neither filed a petition for writ of mandamus nor an appellate brief that could be construed as a petition.
Further, the Court is unable to consider appellant's previously filed 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.
Accordingly, we DENY appellant's "Motion to Change Appellant's Appeal."
It is so ORDERED. Judge's signature: Justice Laura C. Higley
[v] Acting individually [ ] Acting for the Court