### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00878
- CV

Carolyn Barnes, Appellant

v. Texas Attorney General, et al., Appellee s

FROM THE 419TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 15
- 000877 , THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JU D GE 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 liti gants and is

s u bject to a prefiling order filed in Travis County. 1 See Te x. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.1 01(a) (generally authorizing court to enter order prohibiting person from filing new litigation pro se without permission from local administrativ e ju dge when cou rt 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 Practi ce a nd Reme di e s Code requires that the Office of Court Administr ation (OCA) “post on the agency’ s Internet website a list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11. 1 04(b). The OCA list reflects that on November 4 , 201 5 , t h e 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 th e order applies without seeking and obtaining the permission of the l ocal ad mi n i s trative judg e 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.pd f ( l ast visited Feb. 2 6 , 20 20 ).2

not complied with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11, which govern s 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 fro m the appropria te 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 149 0497, at
*1

- 2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 1 1, 2013, n o pet .) (me m . op.) (per curiam) (describing C hapter 11 prefiling requirements for vexatious litigants).

Consequently, by order dated January 10 , 2020, we stayed the litigation and
notified Barnes that s he was required to obtain the permission of the local adm i ni stra t ive judge to file this appeal, provided her with the address of the local administrative judge, and ordered
h er within thirty days of the date of the order to demonstrate to this Court that s he had
obtained permission from the local ad ministrative j ud ge t o 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. Ci v. P r ac. & 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 unde r S ection 11.1 02(a)). We

no ti fied Barnes that, if s he failed to comply with the ord er, we would dismiss h er appeal for want of jurisdiction. To date, Barnes has failed to demonstrate that s he has obtained the local administrative judge’ s permission to file this appeal. Accordingl y, w e di s miss this appeal.3 __________________________________________ Edward Smith, Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: February 28, 2020