R e la to r is req uired to obta in per mis si on to fil e c iv il su it s b ecaus e he has been 1 decl ared to be a v ex ati ous li ti g ant. See Tex . C iv . Prac. & R em. C ode An n. § 11.101 (V er non 200 2) ; In r

e Johnso n, No. 07-0 7-04 31-CV, 2009 W L 222 584 4 (Te x .Ap p.–Am arillo July 27, 200 9) (orig . procee ding) ( me m. op.). NO. 07-09 -003 5-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D AU GU ST 27, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E R . W AY NE JO HN SON , R ELATOR

_________

_________

_________

______ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Rel ator R . W ay ne J ohnso n, a Tex as pr is on i nmate acti ng pr o s e, seeks issua nce of a w rit of man dam us against th e Hono rable W illiam D. Sm ith, Jud ge of the 84 Distri ct

th Cou rtof Han sford Cou nty
. Rel ator ’s m andamus peti ti on all eg es he soug ht permi ss ion to file a c iv il su iti n the 84 Di str ict Cou rt and that Judg e Smit h deni ed per mis si on under Cha pter 11 of the Tex as th C i v i l P ra c t i c e a n d R e me d i e s C o d e . Te x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m. C o d e A n n . 11.0 01 et s eq . 1 (V e rn o n 20 0 2 ). W it h hi s p e ti ti o n , re la to r ha s su b m it te d a co p y of an ord e r sign e d by Ju d ge Smit h, acti ng as l ocal admi nis trati v e j udg e, w hic h reci tes findi ng s t hat rela tor i s a v ex ati ous li ti g ant, the p ro posed li ti g ati on has no meri t and the propose d li ti g ati on is to be filed for th e2

pur pose of haras sment or del ay , and concl udes w it h l ang uag e deny ing rela tor per mis si on to fil e the su it
. See T ex . Ci v . Prac . & Rem. C ode An n. § 11.102 (V er non 200 2) ( prov idi ng for pre- fili ng per mis si on)
. Rel ator co ntends Ju dg e Smi th ’s o rd er i s v oid bec ause the requireme nt con taine d in Chap ter 11 th at he obta in the court’s perm ission be fore f iling suit cont ra v enes the federal and Tex as cons ti tuti ons. Rel ator co ntends al so that Judg e Smi th faile d to afford him noti ce and a hear ing req uired by C hapter 11, and app ears t o c ontend Judg e Smi th er re d by

findi ng hi s p ro posed l it iga ti o n l ack ed mer it
. He seek s a n order re q u i r i n g J u d g e S m i t h t o re s c i n d h i s d e n i a l o f p e r m i s s i o n fo r t h e f i l i n g o f re l a t o r ’ s s u i t
. W e w il l deny the peti ti on. W e f irs t n o te th a t re la to r’s pe ti ti o n do e s n o t c o m p ly w it h th e m a n d a to ry requ ire ments of Rule 52.3 of

the T exas Rules of App ellate Proced ure. T ex. R. App
. P. 52.3. It lacks a tabl e of cont ents ( Rul e 52. 3( b) ), an index of author it ies ( Rul e 52. 3( c) ), a s tatementof the case (Rule 52 .3(d)) and a certif ication (Rule 52. 3(j)). W e consid er his petitio n no net hele ss, in the i nterestof jus ti ce. A w ri t of mandamus i s a n extraordin ar y re medy that w il l is sue onl y to cor re ct a c lea r abuse of dis creti on w hen there is no other adeq uate remedy bylaw
. In r

e D . Wil son Con st. Co. , 196 S.W .3d 7 74, 7 80 ( Tex
. 2006)
. It is the re lat or ’s burden t o s how enti tl ement t o the re li ef being req uest ed. John son v. Fourth District Court of Ap pea ls , 700 S.W .2d 9 16, 9 17 (Te x . 198 5) (orig . procee ding).Amo ng th e c a s e s relator cites in his pet ition is Boddi e v . C onnec ticut , 401 U .S. 2 371, 91 S.C t. 780, 28 L.Ed. 2d 113 (1 971) , w hic h hel d due proces s req uires that ind ig ent ci ti z ens b e e n ti tl ed to fil e for div orce ev en i f they co uld not pay

a fil ing fee. A s t he N int h Ci rc uit obser

v ed i n W olf e , ho w e v e r , th e ho l d i n g o f Boddie w as based on t he fundamental nature of the ri g hts i nv olv ed i n di ss olv ing the mari tal rela ti onshi p, an d “ Boddie di d not proh ibit all fin ancia l barriers to lit ig ation , regardless of f riv olity or v exatiousn ess.” W olf e , 486 F .3d a t 112 6. 3 Altho ugh relator’s pet ition refers t o several con stitutio nal provisions, as w e read his pet ition his un derlyi ng conte ntion is tha t den ial of the ab ility

to f ile his civ il suit depriv es him of prope rty

w it h o u t d ue proces s o f law , i n v iol ati on of the Four teent h Amendment
. U. S. Con st. , amend. X IV. W e address ed a sim ila r d ue proces s c hal len g e to Cha pter 11 present ed by

rela tor i n a prev iou s mand amus p ro ceedi ng . In r e Johnso n, N o. 07 -0 7- 0245- CV , 200 8 W L 26813 14 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo Jul y 9, 2008) ( or ig . proceed ing ) (mem. op.)
. Havi ng re-ex am ined the case law , w e a ga in f ind no merit in relato r’s due proce ss cont enti on. See, e.g., Leonar d v . Ab bott , 171 S.W .3 d 4 5 1, 45 6 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2005 pet
. den ied) (add ressing con stitutio nality of Ch apt er 11); Wolfe v

. G eor ge, 486 F. 3d 1120 (9 Cir
. 2 007 ) ( rejecting constitu tiona l challenges to sim ilar Californ ia statu te); th Annot. ,Val

idi ty, C onst

ru cti on, a nd App licat

ion of State Vex

ati ous Lit iga nt S tatutes , 45 A.L. R. 6th 4 93, 5 01 (2009) ( noti ng thatco urts cons ide ri ng st ate v ex ati ous li ti g ant s tatut es hav e “ cons is tentl y

upheld” their

consti tuti onal ity ). Judg e Smi th’ s o rd er i s n ot v oid by

v ir tue 2 of its i mplement ati on of an un cons ti tuti onal st atute
. In sup port of his argume nt Judge Sm ith could not den y him perm ission to file his suit w it hout noti ce and a hear ing, relat or poi nts to lan g uag e of § 11. 101( a) prov idi ng thata cour t may ente r a pre- fili ng order i f i t makes cer

tai n findi ng s “a fter n oti ce and hea ri ng as prov ide d by

Subc hapter

B.” Tex . C iv . Prac. & Rem
. Co d e A n n. § 11.101( a) ( Ver nonSubchapte r B of Chapter 11 cons is ts of sect ion s 1 1.051 throug h 11. 057. See T e x. 3 Civ . Prac. & Rem . Code Ann. §§ 11 .05 1- 11.0 57 (Ve rnon 200 2). In the d ocument , rela tor note s h e has l aw sui ts pendi ng i n San Franci sc o, 4 Cal ifor nia ; M usk og ee, O kl ahoma; W ashi ng ton, D. C. ; and Phi lad elp hia , Pe nnsy lv ani a. 4 200 2). In this cont ext, the orde r ent ered af ter “notice and hea ring” w as not Judge Sm ith’s 3 order deny ing rela tor

per mis si on to fil e hi s p ro posed su it , butthe pre- fili ng order ente re d by the Di str ict C our

t of B e e C o unty

dec lar ing rela tor

a v ex ati ous li ti g ant. Itw as the B ee Cou nty co urt’ s o rd er

thatprohi bit ed rela tor

from fil ing new

l it ig ati on w it hout per mis si on. W it h respect t o rela tor ’s apparent a rg ument t hat J udg e Smi th e rre d i n h is findi ng re lat or ’s propos ed suithas no meri t, the rec ord rel ator has f il ed w it h hi s mand amus p eti ti on does not c ontai n the pl eadi ng rela tor propose d to file or other w is e adv is e us of the reli ef he w oul d s eek if per mitt ed to f ile t h e suit
. The docu ment app ended t o hi s mand amus peti ti on, w hic h w e understa nd to be a co py of his re q uest to Judg e Smit h, s impl y reit erates the conte ntion s regard ing the const itution ality of Chapt er 11 th at relato r present s in this cour t. Ba sed on th e record before us , w e c oul d notco nclu d e J u dg e Smi th’ s fin din g 4 inv olv ed an abuse of dis creti on. For thes e reason s, re lat or ’s peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i s d eni ed.

Per C ur iam