Opinion
NO. 01-15-01078-CV
06-02-2016
PROPHET RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, Appellant v. HONDA THE OWNER OF THE NAME WORLDWIDE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-19565
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, is attempting to appeal an order sustaining a contest to Whitfield's affidavit of indigence. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss and a supplemental motion to dismiss, as well as a motion for sanctions. Because Whitfield is appealing an interlocutory order, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The clerk's record indicates the order signed on December 7, 2015, sustains the contest filed by the Harris County District Clerk to Whitfield's affidavit of indigence filed in the trial court case. The trial court further stated in this order that the trial court case is stayed until Whitfield either files a proper affidavit of indigence or pays the outstanding court costs. On March 23, 2016, Whitfield filed an amended notice of appeal in which he states he is not challenging the merits of the order or judgments, "[b]ut to challenge the jurisdiction of the court itself and, by extension, the judicial authority of the trial court judges to act for a court which can neither read, write, see nor hear-as void."
Appellee has filed two motions to dismiss, challenging our jurisdiction over this appeal because the order from which Whitfield appeals is interlocutory and not appealable. In its second motion to dismiss, appellee further moves for sanctions for appellant's filing of a frivolous appeal.
The order from which Whitfield appeals is not a final, appealable order. The trial court case remains pending, though stayed. This order does not contain language indicating it is a final judgment or that the trial judge intended to adjudicate all claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal only if authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2008); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998). The December 7, 2015 order is not one for which an interlocutory appeal is statutorily authorized. Furthermore, no authority provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order sustaining a contest to affidavit of indigence regarding trial court costs. See Yarbrough v. Texas Bd. Of Pardons and Paroles, No. 01-10-00335-CV, 2011 WL 3839712, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 25, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction attempted appeal of order sustaining contest to appellant's affidavit of indigence for trial court costs); Aguilar v. Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales LLC, No. 01-08-00653-CV, 2009 WL 1562838, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 4, 2009, no pet.) (same).
On March 29, 2016, this Court issued a notice to Whitfield, advising him that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response on or before April 8, 2016 establishing that this court had jurisdiction. Whitfield has not demonstrated in his response that we have jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we grant appellee's motion to dismiss and we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny appellee's motion for sanctions. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.