Opinion
01-22-00952-CV
01-10-2023
IN RE RICHARD A. DUNSMORE, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Relator, Richard A. Dunsmore, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions to recuse the Honorable Lamar McCorkle, Visiting Judge of the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, trial court civil case number 84023-CV. In his petition, Dunsmore states that the "mandamus relief [s]ought is simple," he requests that this Court "[d]irect the Honorable Lamar McCorkle to remove [h]imself [f]rom Brazoia County [c]ases 84023-CV [and] Brazoria County [c]ases 56909 [and] 56910, and [h]ave an [o]ut of Administrative Judicial Region Judge [a]ssigned to [a]ll [three] [c]ases."
On November 10, 2016, the trial court entered an order of commitment in connection with a final judgment on a unanimous jury verdict finding that Dunsmore is a sexually violent predator. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.081; see also In re Commitment of Dunsmore, 562 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (affirming trial court's judgment and order of commitment).
Although Dunsmore's petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court's denial of his motions to recuse Judge McCorkle in trial court criminal case numbers 56909 and 56910 and trial court civil case number 84023-CV, this opinion only addresses Dunsmore's challenge to the trial court's ruling in connection with trial court civil case number 84023-CV. Dunsmore's challenge to the trial court's denial of the motions to recuse Judge McCorkle in trial court criminal case numbers 56909 and 56910 were docketed by the Clerk of this Court as appellate case numbers 01-22-00943-CR and 01-22-00944-CR and are addressed in a separate opinion.
We dismiss Dunsmore's petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
The underlying case is In re Commitment of Richard A. Dunsmore, Cause No. 84023-CV, in the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable Lamar McCorkle presiding.
"A court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter an order prohibiting a person from filing, pro se, a new litigation in a court to which the order applies under this section without permission of the appropriate local administrative judge described by [Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code] [s]ection 11.102(a) to file the litigation if the court finds, after notice and hearing . . . that the person is a vexatious litigant." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.101(a). A vexatious litigant order signed by a district court applies to every court in the State of Texas. See id. § 11.101(e).
In the underlying civil commitment proceeding, Dunsmore was declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of a pre-filing order signed on December 12, 2018. See Office of Court Administration List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Pre-Filing orders under Section 11.101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, available at https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants (list last updated Dec. 2, 2022); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.104(b) (requiring Office of Court Administration to maintain and post list of vexatious litigants on agency's website); 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 or original proceeding in a civil matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless: (1) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing, or (2) the litigant is appealing from a pre-filing order declaring the person a vexatious litigant. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.103(a). Here, Dunsmore's petition for writ of mandamus is not an appeal from a pre-filing order declaring him a vexatious litigant, and the mandamus record does not contain any order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this pro se original proceeding. Notably, this Court has, on at least two previous occasions, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction appeals from Dunsmore related to trial court civil case number 84023-CV based on his status as a vexatious litigant. See In the Commitment of Dunsmore, 01-19-00101-CV, 2019 WL 3917585, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 20, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Dunsmore is vexatious litigant and failed to obtain required approval); In the Commitment of Dunsmore, 01-21-00151-CV, 2022 WL 904441, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). We similarly lack jurisdiction over Dunsmore's petition for writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, we dismiss Dunsmore's petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.