Opinion
NO. 01-18-00030-CV
04-26-2018
DARRELL J. HARPER, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 165th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-05008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Darrell J. Harper, attempts to appeal the local administrative judge's denial of appellant's request to file new litigation. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
In 2014, appellant was declared a vexatious litigant. As a result, appellant was prohibited from filing, pro se, new litigation without seeking the permission of a local administrative judge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(a) (West 2017). After filing a new lawsuit in 2015, appellant sought permission from the local administrative judge to file the 2015 litigation. The local administrative judge denied appellant's request for permission on December 27, 2017. On January 12, 2018, appellant appealed the local administrative judge's decision to this Court.
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(f) (West 2017). In this case, appellant did not timely apply for a writ of mandamus with this Court. 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.) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52. 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. ref'd) (mem. op.); Reeves v. State, No. 05-12-01142-CV, 2013 WL 1249713, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 13, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).
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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.