TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00878-CV

Carolyn Barnes, Appellant

v.

Texas Attorney General, et al., Appellees

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-GN-15-000877, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Carolyn Barnes, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal in the trial 

court on November 27, 2019. Barnes is on the State of Texas’s list of vexatious litigants and is

subject to a prefiling order filed in Travis County.1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

§ 11.101(a) (generally authorizing court to enter order prohibiting person from filing new 

litigation pro se without permission from local administrative judge when court finds that person 

is “vexatious litigant” after notice and hearing). We will dismiss the appeal because Barnes has 

1

 Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that the Office of 

Court Administration (OCA) “post on the agency’s Internet website a list of vexatious litigants 

subject to prefiling orders.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.104(b). The OCA list 

reflects that on November 4, 2015, the 353rd District Court of Travis County signed an order 

declaring Barnes a vexatious litigant and prohibiting Barnes from filing, pro se, new litigation in 

a court to which the order applies without seeking and obtaining the permission of the local 

administrative judge of the type of court in which she intends to file. See

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1183404/Carolyn-Barnes-Cause-No-D-1-GN-15-002626.pdf

(last visited Feb. 26, 2020).
2

not complied with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11, which governs vexatious 

litigants. See id. §§ 11.001-.104.

Chapter 11 provides that a clerk of a court may not file a “litigation, original 

proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling 

order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local 

administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing.” Id. § 11.103 (duties 

of clerk); see Douglas v. Government Emp. Ins., No. 01-12-00129-CV, 2013 WL 1490497, at 

*1-2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 11, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) 

(describing Chapter 11 prefiling requirements for vexatious litigants). 

Consequently, by order dated January 10, 2020, we stayed the litigation and 

notified Barnes that she was required to obtain the permission of the local administrative judge to 

file this appeal, provided her with the address of the local administrative judge, and ordered 

her within thirty days of the date of the order to demonstrate to this Court that she had 

obtained permission from the local administrative judge to file this appeal. See Douglas, 

2013 WL 1490497, at *2 (dismissing appeal because vexatious litigant failed to comply with 

appellate court’s request that he file proof that he had obtained permission from local 

administrative judge); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.1035 (on receiving notice from 

clerk that litigation was mistakenly filed by vexatious litigant, court shall immediately stay 

litigation and dismiss litigation unless plaintiff obtains permission under Section 11.102(a)). We 

notified Barnes that, if she failed to comply with the order, we would dismiss her appeal for want 

of jurisdiction.

To date, Barnes has failed to demonstrate that she has obtained the local 

administrative judge’s permission to file this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
3

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: February 28, 2020