Opinion
NO. 01-10-00598-CV
07-31-2012
DONALD C. JACKSON, Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 412th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 37704
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2006, appellant Donald C. Jackson, an inmate, sued appellee Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for having unconstitutionally deprived him of his property, namely, a typewriter and a box fan. TDCJ filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that sovereign immunity barred appellant's claims. The trial court denied the plea and TDCJ appealed. On May 29, 2008, we reversed and rendered judgment dismissing appellant's case against TDCJ. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice v. Jackson, No. 01-07-00477-CV, 2008 WL 2209350, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 28, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We denied appellant's motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration. In addition, the supreme court denied appellant's petition for review and motion for rehearing. On May 5, 2009, our mandate issued. On May 3, 2010, the trial court administratively closed the case. Over a year later, on November 9, 2011, appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's administrative closure of his case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
To the degree appellant seeks review of the matters resolved by our opinion of May 29, 2008, appellant is not entitled to further review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49, 64. The Court has already considered and denied appellant's motions for rehearing and en banc reconsideration. The supreme court has denied appellant's petition for review and motion for rehearing.
To the degree appellant complains that the trial court failed to carry out this Court's mandate as directed because the trial court failed to render judgment dismissing the case, this Court did not direct the trial court to dismiss the case. Rather, in accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2 and as reflected in this Court's mandate, this Court rendered judgment dismissing the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(c).
On October 31, 2011, we notified appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 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 Jennings and Keyes.