From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Johnson

State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
May 20, 2021
NO. 14-21-00147-CV (Tex. App. May. 20, 2021)

Opinion

NO. 14-21-00147-CV

05-20-2021

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Relator


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
133rd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2009-15297ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
156th District Court Bee County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-01-1159-0-CV-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 16, 2021, relator R. Wayne Johnson filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains of two trial court orders: (1) a June 14, 2001 order from the 156th Judicial District Court of Bee County, Texas, that declares relator a vexatious litigant, and (2) a July 21, 2009 order from the 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The copy of the latter order attached to relator's petition is incomplete but appears to grant a request by a criminal district judge directing the district clerk to verify that relator has obtained permission from the local administrative judge to file suit against the district judge. Relator contends that both orders are void.

Regarding the June 14, 2001 order finding relator to be a vexatious litigator, Bee County is not in the district for the Fourteenth Court of Appeals but is in the district for the Thirteenth Court of Appeals. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.201(n), (o). To the extent that relator complains of the Bee County order, we do not have jurisdiction over a judge not in this court's district and relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ is necessary to enforce this court's jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction the part of relator's petition complaining of the June 14, 2001 order.

Regarding the July 21, 2009 order, relator has not established entitlement to mandamus relief. As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). Relator has not met his burden. Relator has not included a sworn, certified, and complete copy of the subject order or a sworn or certified copy of every document that is material to relator's claim for relief and was filed in the proceeding in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a); 52.7(a)(1). Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief with respect to the July 21, 2009 order.

We deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice as to the July 21, 2009 order and dismiss relator's petition as to the June 14, 2001 order.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan (Bourliot, J., dissenting without opinion).


Summaries of

In re Johnson

State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
May 20, 2021
NO. 14-21-00147-CV (Tex. App. May. 20, 2021)
Case details for

In re Johnson

Case Details

Full title:IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Relator

Court:State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Date published: May 20, 2021

Citations

NO. 14-21-00147-CV (Tex. App. May. 20, 2021)