C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: B.B.C. and R.D.W. v. Texas Department of Family and

Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00 311

- C V

Trial court case number: 2017

- 02559J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

On April 16, 2018, appellants, B.B.C. and R.D.W., filed a pro se “Original Notice[] of Appeal[]” from the trial court’s Final Decree for Termination, terminating their parental rights to R.P.R., Jr. On April 2 5, 2018, appellants filed a pro se motion to dismiss their appeal. Appellants’ motion , in which they seek to voluntarily dismiss their appeal, is a

242

- page filing including various unidentified and irrelevant documents, such as items printed from the web site of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various emails which appear to be drafted by R.D.W. Many of the 242 pages also include handwritten notes, some of which are not legible.

On May 8, 2018, the Court granted appellants’ motion to dismiss , and t he Court’s judgment also issued May 8, 2018. Despite voluntarily moving to dismiss their appeal, appellants subsequently filed a motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration of the Court’s May 8, 2018 opinion, both of which were dismissed as moot on August 2 8, 2018.

Intermediate appellate courts, such as this Court, retain plenary power over an appeal for a period of: (1) sixty days after its judgment is entered if no timely filed motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is filed, or (2) thirty days after the appellate court overrules all timely filed motions for rehearing or motions for en banc

reconsideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.1. Generally, once an intermediate appellate court’s plenary power expires, it lacks jurisdiction , or any authority, to take any action in an appeal. See Nunu v. Risk , 612 S.W.3d 645, 655 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where plenary power of intermediate appellate court expired).

Once an intermediate appellate court’s plenary power expires, the appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited , and the appellate court may only take those actions specifically2

identified and prescribed in rule 19.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellat e Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.3. Notably, none of the permitted post

- plenary power bases set forth in rule 19.3 apply here.

As noted above, the Court issued the judgment in this appeal on May 8, 2018 and appellants’ motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration were dismissed as moot by the Court on August 18, 2018. Accordingly, the Court’s plenary power over this appeal expired on September 17, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.1(b). Stated another way

, as of September 17, 2018, this Court has had no jurisdiction

, and has lacked any authority

, to take any action in this case under any circumstances

, except as expressly permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 19.3

. Despite that fact, appellants have filed numerous motions and requests for relief since the Court’s plenary power expired. In response to these filings, th e Court has notified appellants , as we do again in this order, that th e Court lacks authority to take any action on

the filings. The Court has issued orders to this effect on at least three occasions, including: (1) a January 24, 2019 order on appellants’ “Amendment & Supplemental to Emergency Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment

, ” (2) an April 9, 2019 order on appellants ’ letter

motions f or stay and recall of mandates , and (3) a March 3, 2022 order on appellants ’
“Motions to Recall Mandates.”

Since the Court’s March 3, 2022 order issued, appellants have filed several additional motions, including a March 11, 2022 filing , which is 123 pa ges and entitled appellants’ “Motions: (1) to Recall and Quash Void Mandates [a]nd (2) Set Aside Void Judgments Procured or Obtained by Extrinsic Fraud upon the Courts. . . (3) Based on want of Jurisdiction for Failure to File Any Notice of Appeal, Much L ess, Timely and a Timely Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal and (4) for Order Correcting Docket to Read Crane Filed an Amended Notice of Appeal

. On March 18, 2022, appellants filed another 57

- page document, including a cover letter, which , on its own, is 11 pages, stating that the filing is entitled appellants’ “Motion for Recusal, Number 01

- 18

- 00485

- CV; Motion to Reinstate Case, Supreme Court Number

18

- 1217, and Complaint for Judicial Misconduct, based on Both Fraud Upon the Court an d “Because [Texas Attorney Donald M. Crane] did not File a Motion for Extension of Time Under Rule 26.3, and [His] [Amended] Notice of Appeal was not Filed Within Twenty Days After the [Judge of] the Trial Court Signed the Final Order Terminating . . . Par ental Rights, [His] Notice of Appeal was Untimely and [as We Have Already Explained Before Finding this Case Cited Below on Yesterday, that, Even if ‘Treating’ Such ‘Amended Notice of Appeal’ as an Original ‘Notice of Appeal,’ Still the legal Result is the Same Because be it an Amended Notice of Appeal or a Notice of Appeal both will have] Failed to Invoke the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals .”

Finally, on April 6, 2022, appellants filed a 74

- page document, entitled appellants’ “Complaint for Judicial Misconduct and Motions: (1) for Reconsideration En Banc, (2) for Rehearing (no reasons stated for conclusion; ergo, How Does one Show Oneself Entitled to Relief Based on a Memorandum Opinion Which Fail[s] and Refuses to Provide Both the3

Real Party/Litigant and Public and Taxpayers the Reasons Which Led the Panel to its Actions), and (3) for Panel Members to Recuse Themselves and Withdraw Their Memorandum Opinion Filed Herein

– Assuming There was a Panel of Three Members and Not Merely a Single J ustice Acting Alone Without any Other Member of the Court Aware and thus Participating.”

As analyzed above, and as appellants have been notified on multiple occasions in this appellate case number , th e Court’s plenary power over this appellate cause number expired on September 17, 2018. Because the Court’s plenary power has expire d , th e Court has no jurisdiction , and as such, no authority to take any action on any filing in this case except as expressly permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 19.3

. Absent plenary power, each of appellants’ above

- referenced motions must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

. We further note that appellant, R.D.W., has been declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of three prefiling orders. The most recent p refiling order was signed on March 30, 2016 in Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. First Serv. Credit Union and Big

Star Honda , Cause No. 2015

- 45473, in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

See Office of Court Administration List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order under chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, available at www.txcourts.gov/judicial

- data/vexatious

- litigants.aspx (last viewed Feb. 24, 2022); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 11.101 (requiring Office of Court Administration to maintain and post list of vexatious litigants on agency website); Douglass v. Am. Title Co. , 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris Coun ty record of vexatious litigants).

In addition to being declared a vexatious litigant in Texas state courts, R.D.W. is also the subject of a “Preclusion Order” in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which bars him from fi ling any noncriminal actions in that court. In the

Preclusion O rder, the Southern District of Texas stated that R.D. W

. has a “penchant for filing meritless and/or frivolous pro se federal lawsuits and appeals,” which have “resulted

in a multitude of monet ary sanctions and preclusion orders against him in the Southern District of Texas and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.” The Preclusion Order further concludes that R.D.W. has engaged in “repeated abuse of the judicial system.”

As detailed in this order, de spite being notified on multiple occasions that the Court is without jurisdiction or authority to take any further action, as the Court’s plenary power expired approximately forty

- four months ago, in September 2018, appellants, specifically, R.D.W., have e ngaged in a similar pattern of filing meritless and/or frivolous filings in this appellate cause number. Accordingly, for any future document submitted by appellants in this appellate cause number, the Court will not take such documents under consider atio n, and will not issue any further orders related to such documents

. The Clerk of this Court

shall not file a ny future documents submitted by appellants in this appellate cause

number and is directed to mark a ny such document as “received

. ”4

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___

/s/ Amp aro Guerra

______ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra

Date: ___ April 21, 2022

____