## NO. 12

- 23

- 00304

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

PHILIP J. EMERSON, JR. , APPELLANT

V.

HOLLY LAKE RANCH A SSOCIATION, INC. , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 402ND

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, T EXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Philip J. Emerson, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal challenging the d enial of a motio n for partial summary judgmen t from July 202 0 , according to his notice of appeal

. On
December 18 , 2023, this Court notified Em erson that the notice of appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there is no final judgment or appealable ord er contained
therewith. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.2. We further notified Emerson that t he appeal would be
dismissed unless the i nformation was amended on or before December 28 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Emerson filed var ious motions, but none establish the jurisdiction of this Court

. Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to review final judgments. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC , 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018)

. The Wood County online recor ds do not reflect a f inal judgment in this case. Moreover, an order denying a motion for a summary judgement is not a fi nal judgement and is ther e fore generally not appealable

. S ee Sorr o w v. Harris C ounty Sheriff , 622 S

. W.3d 496, 508 ( T ex

. A pp

. — Houston [14 th Dist.] 2021, pet

. denied) (citing Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates , 927
S.W. 2d 623, 625 ( T ex

. 1996)). Nor is the interlocutory appeal of the denial of summary2 judgment in this ca se auth o rized by statute. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023 ) (appeal from interlocutory o rder). We also note that Emerso n filed his notice of appeal on December 7, 2023 , long after the time expired for filing a notice of appeal ( or

e xtension of time to file a n otice of appeal) fro m a 2020 order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 26.1 (time to perfect appeal in civil cases); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3 (extension of time)

. Because the order
of which Emerson complain s is not a final judgment or ap pealable interloc utory order , we lack jurisdictio n over his appea l. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a)

. We also note , that i n August 2020, the 402nd District Court of Wood County found
Emerson vexatio us pursuant to Section 11.101 of the civil practice and r emedies c ode. See T E X

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 1 1.101(a) (West 2017 ) (court may enter order prohibiting

pers on from filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which order applies without permission of appropriate local administrative judge if cour t finds person is vex atious). The order prohibits
Emer son from filing , pr o se, new litigation in the 402nd Distric t Court without permission of the appropriate local a dministrative judge. However , a prefiling order entered by a district court applies to each court in this st ate. Id . § 11.101(e)

. A vexatious li tigant subject to a prefiling order is prohibited from filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which the ord er applies without seeking t he permission of:

(1) the local administrative judge of the type of court in which the vexatious litigant intends t o file, except as provided by Subdivision (2); or
(2) the local administrative district judge of the county in w hich the vexatious litigant i ntends to file if the litigant intends to file in a ju stice or constitutional county court.

Id . § 11.102(a) (West 2017). A clerk of a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the litigant obtai ns an order from the appropriate local administrative judge described permitting the filing. Id . § 11.103(a) (West 2017). Here, Emerson has no t provided this Court w ith a n order
from the local adminis trative judge permittin g the filing of the appeal

. See id

. § 11.1035(b) (West 2017) ( court shall dismiss litigation unless plaintiff obtains order from appropriate local administrative judge permitt ing filing of litigation); s ee also Reule v. Chism , No. 1 2

- 23

- 00080

- CV, 2023 WL 3157978 , at *2 ( Tex. App.

— Tyler Apr. 28, 2023, no pet. ) (per curiam) ( mem. op.) ( dismissing for want of jurisdiction appeal by vexatious litigant for failure to obtain permission
from local administrative judge ) ; Yazdchi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , No. 01

- 1 7

- 00301

-3 CV, 2017 WL 2255773, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 23, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ( same ). Nevertheless, even with an order granting him permission to appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal due to the absence of a final judgment or appea lable interl ocutory

o rder. Accordingl y , we dismiss the appeal for want of juris d iction and overrule all pending
motions as moot

.
Opinion delivered Ja nuary 3, 2024

. Panel consist ed of Worthen, C.J. , Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COU RT OF APPEALS

TW ELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

J UDGMENT

J ANUARY 3, 2024

NO

. 12-23-00304- CV

PH ILI P J. EMERSON, JR. , Appellant V. HOLLY LAKE RANCH ASSOCIATION, INC. , Appellee

A ppeal from the 402nd Dist rict Court
of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2020-059)

T HIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
be ing cons id ered, it is the opinion of this Court that i t is wi thout juri sd iction of the appeal, and
th at the ap peal should be dismi ssed.
It is th erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by t his Cou rt th at th is appeal be, and the same is, hereby dis m issed for w ant of j ur isdiction ; a nd t hat this decision
be certi fi ed to the court b el ow for observ ance.

B y per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neel ey, J.