Background
Patricia Ann Potts, proceeding pro se, petitioned for a writ of mandamus alleging that a Harris County civil court had failed to perform its ministerial duty to rule on her pending emergency motions. Her petition identified three lower-court cause numbers, including a case pending before Judge Jermaine Thomas in County Civil Court at Law No. 5.
Potts had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and was subject to a pre-filing order. She supplied no mandamus record or appendix containing the allegedly pending motions. Her petition also failed to identify the real parties in interest or the parties served, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant Potts’s requested mandamus relief. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 11.103, the court clerk may not file a civil original proceeding presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless the litigant first obtains permission from the local administrative judge or is appealing the order declaring the litigant vexatious.
Potts was not challenging the order that declared her a vexatious litigant, and she provided no indication that she had obtained permission to file the proceeding. The court therefore dismissed the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed all pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- A vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order generally must obtain permission from the local administrative judge before initiating a civil original proceeding.
- The statutory exception for an appeal from the vexatious-litigant pre-filing order did not apply because Potts sought mandamus relief concerning allegedly unresolved motions.
- A mandamus petitioner must provide an adequate record supporting the request for relief and comply with procedural requirements concerning parties and service.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Texas pre-filing restrictions for vexatious litigants apply to original mandamus proceedings in civil matters. Failure to obtain the required permission can deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction, regardless of the merits of the alleged trial-court delay.
It also illustrates the importance of an adequate mandamus record: a relator alleging that a trial court refused to rule should include the motions at issue and the materials necessary to establish that a ruling was properly requested and remains outstanding.