COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

CONNEL L SPAI

N, Appellant,

v.
SURGEON CHARL ES THOMAS BL ACK, M.D., PEDI ATRI C SURGI CAL ASSOCI ATES OF F ORT WORTH, BA YL OR AL L SAI

NTS MEDI CAL CENTER, TARRANT COUNTY COMMI SSI ONERS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEX AS, DAL L AS COUNTY COMMI SSI ONERS, ON B EHAL F OF DAL L AS COUNTY, AND DAL L AS COUNTY, TEX AS, Appellee s. § § § § § § § § § No. 08-09-00036- CV

Appea l from the
191st District Court
of Da llas County , Texas (TC# DC-08-12732- J )

O P I N I O N
Connell Spain, pro se , appea ls from an order dismiss ing his suit ag ainst Appellee s. For the following rea sons, we af

firm.

F ACTUAL SUMMA RY Spain, individually and as next friend of his daug hter, Br andi L as h au n S pain, filed suit

ag ainst Appellee s raising numerous claims rela ted to the health car e provided to his daug hter. Spain
attache d as an exhibi t to his petition a copy of an order signe d by the 236th District Court of Tarr ant County on November 6, 2002. That order rec ited that Spain had been deter mined to be a vexatious litigant by the 236th District Court on November 1, 2001. I t require d Spain to attach to any petition
“filed in any Texas district, county , justice, or small claims court an aff idavit stating the evidenc e
he is r eady

and able to present supporting his claim and identify ing the name and addre ss of ever ywitness he intends to ca ll a nd the substance of the witness’s testimony .” Although Spain a ttached
the order to his petition, he did not attach the aff idavit require d by the order

. Spain also attache d to
his petition a copy of an order enter ed on Dec ember 30, 1994, by the Honorab l e Terr y R. Means,
United States District J udg e, which require d Spain to obtain leave of court befor e filing any pleading , motion, or other document in the United States District Court for the Norther n District of

Texas. The District Clerk la ter notified the tr ial court in writing that Spain is a vexatious lit iga nt 1
under Chapter 1 1 o f t h e T ex as Civil Practice and Remedies Code and he had not obtained 2 permission to file suit. The District C l erk attache d to the notice an order enter ed by the 236th
District Court of Tarr ant County on Nov em b er 1, 2001 g ranting a motion filed by Waste Manag ement of Texas I ncorpor ated to decla re Spain a vexatious litigant; and (2) the November 6, 3

2002 order enter ed in the same case g ranting Wa s t e M an age m ent’s motion for sanctions and injunctive relief

. Spain filed a motion to strike the District Clerk’s notice

. At t h e hear ing on the motion to strike, Spain asser ted that he had not been decla red a
vexatious litigant and he had not been order ed by a court to obtain permission to file suit. Counsel
for the District Clerk introduced into evidenc e: (1) a motion filed by Waste Manag ement in the Spain v. W

aste Managem ent suit asking that the 236th District Court enter an order decla ring Spain

to be a vexatious litigant; (2) the November 1, 2001 order enter ed by the 236th District Court which

L i k e t h e o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e 2 3 6 t h D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e o r d e r a l s o r e q u i r e d S p a i n t o a t t a c h t o a n y c o m p l a i n t 1

a n a f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i s r e a d y a n d a b l e t o p r e s e n t s u p p o r t i n g h i s c l a i m a n d i d e n t i f y i n g t h e n a m e a n d a d d r e s s o f e v i d e n c e w i t n e s s h e i n t e n d s t o c a l l a n d t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e w i t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y ; a n d i n c l u d e w i t h t h e f i l i n g o f a l l
c l a i m s i n a l l c o u r t s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a c o p y o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r a n d a c o p y o f a n e x h i b i t a t t a c h e d t o t h e o r d e r d e s c r i b i n g S p a i n ’ s h i s t o r y o f f i l i n g f r i v o l o u s s u i t s
.
S e e T E X

. C IV

. P R A C

. & R E M

. C O D E A N N

. § § 1 1

. 0 0 1

- 1 1

. 1 0 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 2 )

. 2

T h e o r d e r w a s e n t e r e d i n c a u s e n u m b e r 2 3 6 1 8 7 5 3 3 0 1 , C o n n e l l S p a i n , P l a i n t i

f f , a n d P r e c e d i n g N e x t F r i e n d 3 f o r B r a n d i L a s h a u n S

p a i n , a C h i l d v

. W

a s t e M a n a g e m e n t o

f T e x a s I n c o r p o r a t e d a n d C i t

y o f F o r t W

o r t h

. F o r c o n v e n i e n c e , w e w i l l r e f e r t o t h i s o r d e r a s t h e N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 1 o r d e r
. W e w i l l r e f e r t o t h e s u i t a s t h e S

p a i n v

. W

a s t e M a n a g e m e n t s u i t

.g rante d Waste Manag ement’s motion to decla re Spain a vexatious litigant and require d Spain to post

secur ity for costs; and (3) the November 6, 2002 order

. The trial court deni ed Spain’s motion to
strike and dismiss ed his suit with prejudice beca use he had failed to comply with the require ments
of the November 6, 2002 order and he had failed to seek permission befor e filing suit. This appea l
follows.
VEXATIOUS LI TIGANT

I n his sole issue, Spain arg ues that the order enter ed by the 236th District Court on November 6, 2002 is unconstitutionally invalid beca use it modified or altere d an injunction enter ed by the
fede ral district court, it is not derive d from a constitutionally cre dible or competent source , and it is

not entitled to full faith and cre dit. Spain admits in his brief that he unsucce ssfully appea led the
November 6, 2002 order

. Ba y lor All Saints Medica l Center initially responds that Spain waived this

arg ument by not pr esenting it in the trial court. Alterna tively , it c ontends that Spain’s arg ument is an impermissible collater al attac k on the Novembe r 6, 2002 orde r.
W aiver and Im

permissible Collateral Att ack Spain attempts to avoid application of the November 6, 2002 order ’s pre- filing require ments by arg uing for the f

irst time on appeal that the or der is invalid for a number of rea sons. Spain did

not raise these issues in his motion to strike or at the hear ing on his motion. I nstead, Spain arg ued
in the trial court that no order exis ted decla ring him a vexatious litigant and the defe ndants had failed to produce such an or der.
The issue prese nted on appea l is an impermissible collater al attack on a final judgm ent.
Collateral attacks on final judgme nts are g ener ally disallowed beca use it is the policy of the law to

g ive finality to the judgme nts of the courts. Browning v. Prostok , 165 S.W .3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2005); Tice v. City of Pasadena , 767 S.W .2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1989). Chapter 11 of t he C ivil P rac tice andRemedies Code (the vexatious litiga n t statute) does not authorize a collater al attack on an order

decla ring a person to be a vexatious litigant. Fur ther, Spain has cited no au t h o ri ty which would permit him to collater ally attack the November 6, 2002 order enter ed by the 236th District Court and

we a re a war e of none

. Even if Spain could collater ally attack the November 6, 2002 order , he failed to prese rve the
issue for appellate review by objecting on these g rounds in the trial court. As a prer equisite to

prese nting a complaint for appellate revie w, the re cord must show that the complaint was made to
the trial court by a timely reque st, objection, or motion that stated the g rounds for the ruling that the complaining party soug ht from the trial court with sufficie nt specific ity to make the trial court awa re
of the complaint. T E X .R.A P P .P. 33.1( a)( 1)(A)

. Fur ther, if the a

rg ument raised on a

ppeal does not
comport wi t h t he objection made in the trial court, nothing is prese nted for our revie w.
T E X .R.A P P .P. 33.1(a) (1)( A); Cunningham v. Hughes & Luce, L.L.P. , 312 S.W .3d 62 (Tex.App.--El

P as o 2010, no pet.). Be cause Spain did not raise these challeng es t o the November 6, 2002 order
in the trial court, he has failed to prese rve the issue for our revie w. I t is unnece ssary to a ddress the

rema ining issues raised by the Appellees

. Ac co rding ly , we overr ule the sole issue prese nted on
appea l and af

firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

Aug ust 31, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice

Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.