Summary
holding that, because Florence failed to obtain and provide this Court with permission from local administrative judge, Florence could not proceed with appeal and appeal was dismissed
Summary of this case from In re FlorenceOpinion
NO. 01-17-00690-CV
11-16-2017
THOMAS FLORENCE, Appellant v. ROBBIE L. GUARNELO, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 16FD3374
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Thomas Florence, acting pro se, filed suit against appellee, Robbie L. Guarnelo, asserting denial of paternity. On June 27, 2017, the trial court dismissed his petition with prejudice. Florence filed a timely motion for new trial and a timely notice of appeal. Importantly, however, it has come to our attention that Florence has been declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of three prefiling orders. Accordingly, Florence may not proceed with this appeal without a permission order from the local administrative judge. Because Florence has obtained no such order, we dismiss the appeal.
The Office of Court Administration website lists all vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders. See OFFICE OF COURT ADMIN., List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Prefiling Orders under Section 11 .101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants/ (list last updated October 18, 2017); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.104(b) (requiring office of court administration to maintain list and post list of vexatious litigants on agency's website). Florence is one such litigant. See, e.g. Thomas Florence v. Ken Paxton, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-000897 in the 419th District Court of Travis County, Texas (September 20, 2017). See http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1439052/thomas-florence-09_20_17.pdf http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1438912/thomas -florence .pdf(last viewed on Nov. 10, 2017); see also Douglas v. Am. Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris County record of vexatious litigants).
The Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless ( 1 ) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing or (2) the appeal is from a pre-filing order designating the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.103(a). Appellant is not appealing from a prefiling order designating him a vexatious litigant. See id. at § 11.103(d). Thus, appellant may not proceed unless the local administrative judge permitted this filing.
Appellant cannot make the requisite showing. On October 5, 2017, this Court issued a notice to appellant advising him that we would dismiss this appeal unless appellant responded within 10 days with proof that, before filing this appeal, he had obtained an order from the local administrative judge permitting this appeal. But Appellant did not produce an order permitting the filing of this appeal. Similarly, the clerk's record is devoid of any order permitting the filing of this appeal.
Because Appellant fails to make the requisite show that the local administrative judge permitted this appeal, we dismiss. See Kastner v. Fulco, No. 01-13-00100-CV, 2013 WL 6157392, at * 1-2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 21, 2013, no pet.) (dismissing appeal after providing notice of intent to dismiss because vexatious litigant appellant failed to provide copy of order permitting filing of appeal); McCray v. Prudential Ins., No. 14-12-00860-CV, 2012 WL 5586804, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.) (same). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Caughey.