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 whether 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 requested 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 proceeding 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 appeal 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 proceeding, 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 every 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 service.
Windsor v. Joeyisalittlekid Page 4

Accordingly, appellant’s motion to continue the stay, second motion for stay, 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 18, 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. TEX. R. APP. 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 form 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(d), (e); 42.3(c).

The clerk’s record and reporter’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 submitted on the clerk’s record alone. See TEX. R. APP. 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 dismissal 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 obtains permission to file this appeal from the appropriate 

federal district court and present to this Court an order from that judge 

granting appellant permission to file the appeal, or

2. Appellant sufficiently explains 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. TEX. R. APP. 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 dismiss 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 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).5

PER CURIAM

Before Chief 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 and 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.