### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 136 -CV

Wil lia m Ar ne tt

Hal l , A ppe lla nt
v. Harris County, Texas; Mar y Bacon, Denise Crawf ord and T err ance Windh am , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0018 06 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
On M ay 6, 1986, the 338th district court of Ha rris County

found appe llant Wi lliam Ar ne tt H a ll guil ty

of se xua l a ssa

ult and se nte nc e d h im to life imp ri so nme nt. On Ma y 22 , 2 00 6, Ha ll
su e d a pp e lle e s Mar

y B a c on and De nis e Cr awf or d, the re sp e c tiv e jud g e and pr os e c uto r of the 33 8th distr i ct co u rt at the time of his conviction, appe llee Te rra nce Windham, Hall’s c ourt-appointed defe nse attorne y , and appe llee Ha rris County

for a l l ege d wrong s resulting from the pr osecution. Af te r H a ll o bta ine d s e rv ic e on Cr awf or d a nd Wind ham, C ra wf ord m ov e d to dis mis s th e c la ims ag ainst her for having no a rg uable ba sis in law or fac t. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a) (2) ( West 2002). Crawf ord also moved to dismiss on the g rounds that Hall, an inmate , failed to file the require d decla ra t i o n o f p revious pro se suits. See id. § 14.004. On Oc tob e r 1 9, 20 06 , th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d Cra wf or d’ s fir st moti on by dis mis sin g Ha ll’ s cla ims a g a ins t her w ith prejudice. In the same or der the trial court g rante d Crawf ord’s motion to dismi ss pursuant to section 14.004 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Re medies Code. Ha ll appeals the or der.See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.220(c) (West 2004). 1 2 I n g ener al, a pa

rty can o n l y ap p eal f

rom a fina l judgment. Lehmann v. Har- Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Any other a ppeal must be a

uthorized by

statute. S

ee id. An or de r g ive n w ith ou t a tria l on th e me ri ts i s n ot a fi na l ju dg me nt i n th e c on te xt of an a pp e a l un le ss it actually disposes of eve ry

party and cla im or it clearly

and unequivocally states that it disposes of all parties a

nd claims. Id. at 205. T h e o rd er f

rom which Ha ll appeals doe s not mention any defe ndant other tha

n Crawf ord, stating , “that plaintiff William Arnett Hall take nothing from Crawf ord; and that any

and all relief soug ht from or a g ainst Crawf ord in the instant c ase is de nied.” L ang uag e stating that the pla int if f t a ke no thi ng from o nly on e de fe nd ant d oe s n ot s ho w f ina lity wh e n th e re are mul tip le defe ndants in the suit. See id. The order also, when g ranting dismiss al under se ction 14.004 of the Texas Civi l Pra ct i ce an d R emedies Code, g rants dismissal of “Ha ll’s petition” with no other qu a lif ie rs so that it

is unc le ar w he the r t

he tr ia l c ourt

a lso dis mis se d H a ll’ s p e tit ion wi th r e sp e c t to the re st o f t

he pa rt ie s. Thus , w e c ann ot s ay that th e or de r c le arl y

and un e qu ivo c a lly st ate s th at it dis po se s o f a ll p art ie s and c la ims
. We could still have jur isdiction over Hall’s a ppeal if the order actua lly disposes of
a ll p art ie s and

c la ims . Wh e n q

ue sti on e d to tha t ef

fe c t by thi s Co ur t, Hall re sponded in a letter dated 1 May 7, 2007, “NO I

do not believe that the said judgme nt is final and or do [si c] it eff ect [ sic] the other de fenda

nts in no [ sic] way .” B eca use Ha ll admits t hat the orde r fr om which he a ppeals doe s not dispose of all parties a nd claims, the o rd er i s n o t a final judgment. Thus, this Court does not have jur isdiction to hear Ha ll’s appea l unless an appe al from the order is authorized by statute. The rele vant statute only

authorizes the appe al of cer tain cate g ories of inter locutory order s, and Ha ll’s3

order does not fit within any of them. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & R em . Code Ann. § 51.014(a ) (West Supp. 2006).

Be cause Hall has not obta ined an a ppeala ble interlocutory

order or a f inal judgme nt in his cause, we must dism iss his appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and He nson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 17, 2007