### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 15 - 00092
- CV WILLIAM WINDSOR , Appellant v. JOEYISALITTLEKID, ET AL , Appellee

From the 378th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER
Appellant, William W. Windsor, is incarcerated. 1 This is one of four interlocutory appeals in which appellant is acting as his own counsel. 2 We have had

1 Appellant has been filing documents more quickly than we are able to respond to them. This order is based on information and documents received through the close of business on May 18, 2015 and will not be modified based on documents received thereafter. Subsequently received documents will be addressed, if necessary, at a later date.

2 See 10

- 14

- 00355

- CV, Windsor v. Round ; 10

- 14

- 00392

- CV, Windsor v. Fleming ; 10

- 15

- 00069

- CV, Windsor v. McDougald

.Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid Page 2

difficulty in obtaining appellant’s compliance with the rules and procedures of this
Court. Appellant has never filed the documents to determine whet her he is a pauper. Except for two of his most recent motions, he has paid, usually late and after notice and threat of dismissal, most of the filing fees in all four proceedings. Other than the unsupported conclusory statement in his motion to continue the stay, “I cannot afford an attorney,” he had not asserted he could not hire counsel to represent him in this appeal. Then, in two different motions entitled “Second Motion for Stay,” he provided some financial information in an effort to explain why he cannot afford an attorney. 3 The information provided establishes he is able to pay filing fees. Appellant has contended, however, that due to his incarceration, he does not have adequate access to information and legal resources and has previously reque sted a stay until he has adequate access to the information and legal resources needed to handle his appeals. We granted his request for a stay, in part, by order issued April 2, 2015. We ordered this proceeding stayed for 35 days at which time the proce eding would be automatically reinstated. Appellant filed a motion to continue the stay and, now apparently recognizing that the partial grant of a stay has now expired, has filed a second motion for stay and an amended second motion for stay of this appea l until he is released from jail.

3 We will refer to the second “Second Motion for Stay” as an amended second motion for stay.Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid Page 3

Contrary to our explicit instructions in a letter dated March 16, 2015, appellant did not file his motion to continue the stay in each pending appeal; in fact, he did not even identify by case number or style of the pro ceeding, in which proceeding he wanted to file the motion. He noted only that he wanted it to be filed in all his proceedings other than his pending criminal appeal. Further, he did not pay the filing fee contemporaneously with the motion to continue the stay as required. Also contrary to our explicit instructions, appellant did not serve the motion on any other party to the proceeding; and there is no proof of service presented with the motion as appellant had been previously informed was required on ev ery document filed with the Court. 4 We grow weary of appellant’s blatant disregard of the rules and explicit notices from the
Court , and we are not even close to being able to reach the merits of any of the issues in these proceedings. Appellant’s motion to continue the stay, second motion for stay, and amended second motion for stay are woefully deficient in their procedural compliance. Furthermore, we expressly explained that appellant would not be allowed to use his
incarceration as a means to further delay the disposition of this proceeding

— precisely the grounds for the extension of the stay which he seeks. Appellant’s motions are thus also woefully deficient on their merits.

4 With regard to the second motion for stay and amended second motion for stay, Windsor did file a copy in each proceeding but failed to provide proper proof of ser vice.Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid Page 4

Accordingly, appellant’s motion to continue the stay, second motion for s tay, and amended second motion for stay are denied. The stay entered in this proceeding on April 2, 2015 was automatically lifted by its express terms on May 7, 2015 and the appellate timetable for this appeal resumed as of that date. At this time, May 1 8, 2015, a $10 fee for the motion to continue the stay is past due. Further, a $10 fee for the second motion for stay is past due. Failure to pay the two required motion filing fees within 21 days from the date of this Order will result in
the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(c). The docketing statement for this appeal is now past due. Failure to file the docketing statement, serve it on all parties to the appeal, and provide proof of service to
this Court in a for m recognized by Rule 9.5(d) and (e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within 21 days from the date of this Order will result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.5(d), (e); 42.3(c). The clerk’s record and repor ter’s record in this appeal are now past due. Failure to make arrangements to obtain and pay for the reporter’s record, if any, and to also notify the Court of those arrangements within 21 days from the date of this Order will result in the appeal being s ubmitted on the clerk’s record alone. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 37.3(c)(1). Failure to make arrangements to obtain and pay for the clerk’s record and to also notify the Court of those arrangements within 21 days from the date of this Order
will result in the d ismissal of this appeal without further notice

. Id . at (b).Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid Page 5

Further, it appears that appellant is subject to a prefiling order and did not present this appeal with an order from the federal district court in the district where the appeal was filed giving appellant leave to file the appeal, such order being obtained in the manner specified in Windsor v Hatten , No. 1:11

- CV

- 1923

- TWT, U.S. Dist. Court, Northern Dist. of Georgia (July 15, 2011). Accordingly, this appeal will be dismissed unless, within 21 days from the date
of this notice:
1. Appellant obtain s permission to file this appeal from the appropriate federal district c ourt and present to this Court an order from that judge granting appellant permission to file the appeal , or
2. Appellant sufficiently explain s why a filing from appellant in this Court is exempt from the federal court injunction order noted above. Failure to file a response as requested, serve it on all parties to the appeal, and provide proof of service to this Court in a form recognized by Rule 9.5(d) and (e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notification for failure to comply with this Order. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.3(c). Lastly, pursuant to Rules 42.3 and 44.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant is notified that this appeal is subject to dismissal because it appears there is no final, appealable order. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195, 205 (Tex. 2001). Therefore, the Court will d ismiss this appeal unless, within 21 days from the date of this letter, a response is filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal.Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid Page 6

Failure to file a response as requested, serve it on all parties to the appeal, and provide proof of service to this Cour t in a form recognized by Rule 9.5(d) and (e) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notification for failure to comply with this Order. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(c). 5

PER CURIAM
Before Chie f Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion to continue the stay is denied Second motion for stay is denied Amended second motion for stay is denied Order issued and filed May 28, 2015

5 The parties should not assume that by allowing the further development of this appeal that the Court has determined whether this appeal should be dismissed for violation of a federal court’s order that identified appellant as a vexatious litigant a nd enjoined appellant from filing any complaint or initiating any proceeding in any state or federal court or agency in the United States without first obtaining leave of a federal district court in the district where the new complaint or proceeding is to be filed.