## N O
. 12

- 23

- 00259

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

AUTHOR JAMES MANNI N

G JR. , APPELLANT
V.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.M. , APPELLEE S §

§
§ APPEAL FROM THE 3 07TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM On October 3 , 2023, Author J ames Manning, J r . filed a pro se notice of app eal

. On October 4 , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the no tice of appeal f ai led to contain the information specifically r equired by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 , 10.1(a), and 25.1(d), an d Section 51.01 7 (a) of the Te xas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 ( service ) , 10.1(a) (contents of motions) , 25.1(d) ( cont ents of notice) ; see also T EX

. C IV

. P RA C

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.017(a) (We st Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal mu st be served on

e ach court reporter responsible for preparing reporter ’ s record). The notic e warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper noti ce of appeal on or before O ctober 16 , the appeal would be r efer red to the Cou rt for dismissal. 1 Also on October 4 , this Court noti fied Manning that the notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there is no final judgment or ap pealable order contained therewith. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.2. We further notified Manning

1 Pro se liti gants are h eld to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with a ll applicable rul es of procedure ; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair a dvantage over part i es represented by counsel. Muham med v. Plai ns Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV , 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex . App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.2 that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before Octo ber 16 to show th is Court ’ s jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. On Oct ober 5 and 9 , Manning file d amended notice s of appeal. The notice s still fail to comply with Rule 25.1 and do no t demonstrate this Co urt ’ s jurisdiction

. N or did Manning otherwise respond to this Court ’ s jurisdictional notice. Additionally, we note that c ourts possess inherent powers that aid the exercise of their jurisdiction, facilitate the administration of jus tice , and preserve th e independence an d integ rity of the judicial system. Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Products, LLC , 601 S.W.3d 704, 718 (Tex. 202 0). Because inherent powers must be used sparingly, appellate courts have consistently held that the inherent po wer to sanction exists to the extent ne cessary to deter, alleviate, and counteract one ’ s bad faith abuse of the judicial process

. Id

. Bad fait h includes intentional conduct , the conscious doing of a wrong for a dishonest, discriminator y, or malicious purp ose , as well as the in tent to engage in conduct for an impermissible reason, willful noncompliance, or willful ignorance of the facts. Id . at 718

- 19

. “ E rrors in judgment, lack of diligence, unreasonableness, negligence, or even gross negligence

— without mo re

— do not equate to ba d faith. ” Id
. at 719. “ Improper motive, not perfection, is the touchstone. ” Id

. Bad faith can be established by dire ct or circumstantial evidence, but absent direct evidence, the record must reasonably give rise to an inference of intent or willfulness

. Id

. The petition in trial court cause number 2001

- 1995

- DR (also 2001

- 1995) was filed in 2001 and an order establishing the parent child relationship was entered in 2002

. This Court has no record of Manning timely appealing from the order. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1 ( notice of appeal must be filed within thirty day s after judgment signed or within ninety days i f postjudgme nt motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is timely filed, or within twenty days after jud gment or order signed i n accelerated appeal ). Beginning in 2021, Appellant filed notices of appeal from trial court cause number 2001

- 1995

- DR , each time contending that he is not the child ’ s fa ther , and we dismissed the appeals for failure to comply with applicable appellate ru les

. See Manning v. State of Texas and In the Interest of S .M. , No. 12

- 23

- 00203

- CV, 2023 WL 5978202 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Se pt. 13, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Interest of A.S.M. , No. 12

- 22

- 00257

- C V, 2022 WL 16558446 (Tex. App.

— Tyler

2 This Court searched txcou rts.gov for ot her related appeal s rega rding trial court cause number 20 01

- 1995

- DR (and 2001

- 1995) and it appears that whi le Manning filed appeals in other courts, they were not t imely filed with respect to the 2002 order.3 Oct. 31, 2022, n o pet. ) (per curiam) (mem. op .) ; Interest of A.S.M. , N o. 12

- 21

- 00005

- CV, 2021 WL 761730 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Fe b. 26, 2021 , no pet. ) (p er curiam) (mem. op.)

. Y e t , Man ning continues to appeal from this cause number , without complying w ith applicabl e appellate rules , explai ning why this Court has jurisdiction , or otherwise responding t o this Court ’ s notices

. 3 At a minimum , t h i s c o n d u c t re asonably give s rise to an inference of willfulness

. See Brewer , 601 S.W.3d at 719; see also Black ’ s Law Dictiona ry 1630 (8 th ed. 2004) ( d efining “ willful ” as

“ [v ]oluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious ” ). Manning ’ s (1) repeat edly filing p roceedings to raise the same contention , namely that he is no t the child ’ s father and the trial court ’ s 2002 orde r establishing the parent child relationship should be reversed (and sometime s seeking d amages) , and (2) failing to respond to jur isdictional n o tices and comply with appellate rules, resulting in the proceeding ’ s d ismissal i n each appeal, waste s judicial a nd fiscal resources and co nstitutes bad faith abuse of the judicial process. See Ex par te Gre en , 596 S.W.3d 498, 502

- 03 (Tex. App

. — Waco 2020 , orig. proceeding ) ( Green ’ s habit of continually rais i ng “ same incoherent and incomprehensible issues in appellate cause numbers that have be en resolved and closed ” “ caused a complete waste of judicial resources as to constitute an abuse of the judicial pro cess fo r which Green may be sanctioned ” )

. Accordingly, any fur ther attempts by Manning to file a direct appeal i n trial court cause number 2001

- 1995

- DR , including cause number 2001

- 1995, will be deemed an abuse of the judicial process. Under such circums tances, this Court will consi der its broad range of inherent powers, including its power to sanction. Pursuant to our inherent power to contr ol this Court ’ s docket, we direct Manning to refrain from filing addit ional direct appeals from trial court cause n umber 2001

- 1995

- DR , including cause number 2001

- 1995

. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to appellate Rule 42.3 (c) and for want of juri sdiction

. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 42.3( a); T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 42.3 ( c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days ’ notice to a l l parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal

3 In addition to the four appeals in trial court cause number 2001

- 1995

- DR , Manning has filed numerous ap peals regarding other cause s , al l of which we den ied or d ismissed

. See Ma nning v. Longview So cial Security Office , No. 12

- 23

- 00229

- CV, 2023 WL 6369778 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Sept. 29, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ; Manning v. Viacom CBS, Inc
. , No. 12

- 2 3

- 00113

- CV, 2023 WL 4308652 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 30, 2 023 , no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Manning v. Longview Social Secur ity Office , No. 12

- 21

- 002 41

- CV, 2022 WL 243195 (Tex. App.

— Tyle r Jan. 26, 2022, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.)

. I n the prese n t appeal, Manning failed to file a docketing statement or respond to this Court ’ s notice questioning jurisd iction

. In virtually all the proceedings he file s , Manning regularly fails to comply with service requiremen ts and other applicable appellate ru les and his notices of appeal consistently fail to contain the c ontents requi red by Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 25.1. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 25.1(d)

. Manning a l s o habitually fails to respond to th is Court ’ s juri sdictional notices.4 i s subject to dismissal because appellant failed to comp ly with a requirement of the se rules, a court order, or a not ice from th e cle rk requiring a response or other action within a spec ified time)

. All pending motions are overruled as moot

.
Opinion delivered October 31 , 2023

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J ., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS
TW ELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JU DG MENT

O CTOBER 31, 2023

NO
. 12-23-00259- CV

AUT HOR JAMES MANNING JR. , Appellant V. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, THE STA TE OF TEXAS AND IN THE INTEREST OF A .S.M., Appellee s
Appeal from the 307th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2001-1995- DR ) THIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate re cord, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court th at the appeal should be dis miss ed

. I t is t herefore ORDERED, ADJUDG ED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt t hat this appeal be, and the same is , h e reby di smissed both pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 (c) and for wan t of jurisdiction ; and that this de cision be certifie d to the cour t below for observance.
B y per c uriam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. an d Neeley, J

.