NO. 12-23-00259-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

AUTHOR JAMES MANNING JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

TEXAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS AND 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.M.,

APPELLEES

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 307TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On October 3, 2023, Author James Manning, Jr. filed a pro se notice of appeal. On 

October 4, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain 

the information specifically required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, 10.1(a), and 

25.1(d), and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 9.5 (service), 10.1(a) (contents of motions), 25.1(d) (contents of notice); see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on 

each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notice warned that, unless 

Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before October 16, the appeal would be referred 

to the Court for dismissal.1 Also on October 4, this Court notified Manning that the notice of 

appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there is no final judgment or 

appealable order contained therewith. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. We further notified Manning 

1 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable 

rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by 

counsel. Muhammed v. Plains 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 October 16

to show this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. On October 5 and 9, Manning filed 

amended notices of appeal. The notices still fail to comply with Rule 25.1 and do not 

demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction. Nor did Manning otherwise respond to this Court’s 

jurisdictional notice. 

Additionally, we note that courts possess inherent powers that aid the exercise of their 

jurisdiction, facilitate the administration of justice, and preserve the independence and integrity 

of the judicial system. Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Products, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, 718 (Tex. 

2020). Because inherent powers must be used sparingly, appellate courts have consistently held 

that the inherent power to sanction exists to the extent necessary to deter, alleviate, and 

counteract one’s bad faith abuse of the judicial process. Id. Bad faith includes intentional 

conduct, the conscious doing of a wrong for a dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purpose, as 

well as the intent to engage in conduct for an impermissible reason, willful noncompliance, or 

willful ignorance of the facts. Id. at 718-19. “Errors in judgment, lack of diligence, 

unreasonableness, negligence, or even gross negligence—without more—do not equate to bad 

faith.” Id. at 719. “Improper motive, not perfection, is the touchstone.” Id. Bad faith can be 

established by direct 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (notice of 

appeal must be filed within thirty days after judgment signed or within ninety days if 

postjudgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is timely filed, or 

within twenty days after judgment or order signed in 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 father, and we dismissed the appeals for failure to comply 

with applicable appellate rules. See Manning v. State of Texas and In the Interest of S.M., No. 

12-23-00203-CV, 2023 WL 5978202 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 13, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam)

(mem. op.); Interest of A.S.M., No. 12-22-00257-CV, 2022 WL 16558446 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

2 This Court searched txcourts.gov for other related appeals regarding trial court cause number 2001-1995-

DR (and 2001-1995) and it appears that while Manning filed appeals in other courts, they were not timely filed with 

respect to the 2002 order.
3

Oct. 31, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Interest of A.S.M., No. 12-21-00005-CV, 2021 

WL 761730 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 26, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Yet, Manning

continues to appeal from this cause number, without complying with applicable appellate rules, 

explaining why this Court has jurisdiction, or otherwise responding to this Court’s notices.

3 At a 

minimum, this conduct reasonably gives rise to an inference of willfulness. See Brewer, 601 

S.W.3d at 719; see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1630 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “willful” as 

“[v]oluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious”). Manning’s (1) repeatedly filing 

proceedings to raise the same contention, namely that he is not the child’s father and the trial 

court’s 2002 order establishing the parent child relationship should be reversed (and sometimes 

seeking damages), and (2) failing to respond to jurisdictional notices and comply with appellate 

rules, resulting in the proceeding’s dismissal in each appeal, wastes judicial and fiscal resources

and constitutes bad faith abuse of the judicial process. See Ex parte Green, 596 S.W.3d 498, 

502-03 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, orig. proceeding) (Green’s habit of continually raising “same 

incoherent and incomprehensible issues in appellate cause numbers that have been resolved and 

closed” “caused a complete waste of judicial resources as to constitute an abuse of the judicial 

process for which Green may be sanctioned”). Accordingly, any further attempts by Manning to 

file a direct appeal in trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR, including cause number 2001-

1995, will be deemed an abuse of the judicial process. Under such circumstances, this Court will 

consider its broad range of inherent powers, including its power to sanction.

Pursuant to our inherent power to control this Court’s docket, we direct Manning to 

refrain from filing additional direct appeals from trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR, 

including cause number 2001-1995. We dismiss the appeal pursuant to appellate Rule 42.3(c)

and for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own 

initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all 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 

appeals regarding other causes, all of which we denied or dismissed. See Manning v. Longview Social 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. 12-23-00113-CV, 2023 WL 4308652 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2023, 

no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Manning v. Longview Social Security Office, No. 12-21-00241-CV, 2022 WL 

243195 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 26, 2022, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). In the present appeal, Manning 

failed to file a docketing statement or respond to this Court’s notice questioning jurisdiction. In virtually all the 

proceedings he files, Manning regularly fails to comply with service requirements and other applicable appellate 

rules and his notices of appeal consistently fail to contain the contents required by Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 25.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 25.1(d). Manning also habitually fails to respond to this Court’s 

jurisdictional notices.
4

is subject to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a 

court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified 

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

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

OCTOBER 31, 2023 

NO. 12-23-00259-CV

AUTHOR JAMES MANNING JR., 

Appellant 

V.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IN THE 

INTEREST OF A.S.M., 

Appellees 

Appeal from the 307th District Court 

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2001-1995-DR) 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed both pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.3(c) and for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance. 

By per curiam opinion. 

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