Opinion
04-22-00069-CV
07-13-2022
Chris Noel CARLIN, Appellant v. BEXAR COUNTY; Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff, in his Official Capacity as Bexar County Judge; Judge Ron Rangel, Local Criminal Court Administrative Judge, Bexar County, Texas, in his Official Capacity as Local Criminal Court Administrative Judge of Bexar County; and Judge Rosie Alvarado, Local Administrative Judge, Bexar County, Texas, in her Official Capacity as Local Administrative Judge of Bexar County, Appellees
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021CI10840 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice, Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
On February 3, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating an intent to appeal the trial court's February 2, 2022 order denying appellant's first amended application for temporary restraining order. Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in the absence of a statutory provision permitting such an appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007). Although section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes interlocutory appeals of denials of temporary injunctions, "[a] temporary restraining order is generally not appealable." In re Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm'n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002) (citing Del Valle Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex. 1992)). Because appellant apparently sought an interlocutory appeal of an order on which no interlocutory appeal is authorized, on February 15, 2022, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On February 25, 2022, appellant filed a brief on the merits in response to our order. In his brief, appellant asserts the order denying his application for a temporary restraining order should be construed as either an order denying a permanent injunction or an order denying a request for a temporary injunction. The essence of appellant's argument is that because the trial court's order stated the trial court "is of the belief that it does not have the authority to grant the relief sought," the order operates as a permanent denial of injunctive relief and a final judgment. We disagree. The order facially denies only appellant's "first amended application for temporary restraining order." Additionally, as noted in our prior order, at the time the trial court denied appellant's application for temporary restraining order, none of the appellees (defendants below) had even been served. Compare Tex. R. Civ. P. 680 (authorizing issuance of temporary restraining orders without notice in certain situations), with Tex. R. Civ. P. 681 (temporary injunction cannot issue without notice to adverse party).
The February 2, 2022 order denied appellant's request for a temporary restraining order, and it is not subject to interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION