TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00565-CV

Anurithi Madugula, Appellant 

v. 

FM 969 Commercial Development, LLC; Rathna Reddy; and Vema Reddy, Appellees 

FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY,

NO. 24-22415, GREGORY KLAUS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

 On August 29, 2024, we stayed this appeal to allow appellant Anurithi Madugula, 

who is acting pro se, to obtain permission from the local administrative judge to file this appeal

because appellant has been declared a vexatious litigant. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

§ 11.054 (stating criteria for finding plaintiff vexatious litigant). We also advised appellant that 

failure to obtain permission would result in dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Leonard v. Paxton, No. 03-19-00771-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3032, at *3–4 (Tex. App.—

Austin Apr. 10, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); Johnson v. Hughey, No. 06-12-00079-CV, 

2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8406, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 5, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). 

The order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant is from a Travis County district 

court and prohibits appellant from filing a new lawsuit in its court without permission from the 
local administrative judge.1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.101(a) (authorizing court to 

enter order prohibiting person from filing new litigation in court to which order applies without 

permission from appropriate local administrative judge if court finds person is vexatious 

litigant). Although the order expressly prohibits appellant from filing a new lawsuit only in 

Travis County district court without permission, “a prefiling order entered by a district court 

applies to each court in this state.” Emerson v. Holy Lake Ranch Ass’n, No. 12-23-00304-CV, 

2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 18, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 3, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(explaining that although order prohibited litigant from filing new litigation in particular court, 

“prefiling order entered by a district court applies to each court in this state” (citing Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.101(e))). Further, when a vexatious litigant is subject to a prefiling 

order under Section 11.101, a clerk of a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, 

appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by the vexatious litigant unless the litigant obtains an 

order from the appropriate local administrative judge. See id. at *3 (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & 

Rem. Code § 11.103(a)).

Appellant has filed an “answer to order for stay of appeal and motion requesting 

lift of stay of appeal,” but appellant has not demonstrated permission from the local 

administrative judge to file this appeal.2 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(a).

1 The order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant is dated November 6, 2020, and 

refers to appellant as Anurithi Chikkerur. Appellant does not dispute that she is the person who 

is subject to the order.

2 In the answer to this Court’s order, appellant relies on Serafine v. Crump, 691 S.W.3d 917

(Tex. 2024), as support that she is not required to obtain permission from the local administrative 

judge to file this appeal. In that case, the Texas Supreme Court addressed the meaning of 

“litigation” in the context of an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order declaring the pro 

se petitioner to be a vexatious litigant. See id. at 920; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

§§ 11.001(2) (defining “litigation” to mean “a civil action commenced, maintained, or pending in 

any state or federal court”), .054(1) (stating criteria for declaring party vexatious litigant, 
Accordingly, a prerequisite to filing this appeal was not met, and the appeal should not have been 

filed. See id.; Johnson, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8406, at *5 (dismissing appeal for want of 

jurisdiction because appellant who had been declared vexatious litigant had not requested 

permission from local administrative judge). 

For these reasons, we lift the stay and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: October 2, 2024

including that plaintiff, in seven-year period, “has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained at least 

five litigations as a pro se litigant”). The question before the court was whether an appeal from a 

civil action counts as a separate litigation from the underlying action for purposes of determining 

whether the petitioner was a vexatious litigant, and in that context, the court concluded that “an 

appeal and a petition for review from a judgment or order in a civil action are part of the same 

civil action and count as a single ‘litigation.’” Serafine, 691 S.W.3d at 921–22. In contrast, 

here, appellant’s appeal is not from and does not challenge the order declaring her a vexatious 

litigant. In this context, under the plain language of Section 11.103(a), permission from the local 

administrative judge to file this appeal was required. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§ 11.103(a) (stating that clerk of court may not file appeal presented pro se “by a vexatious 

litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from 

the appropriate local administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing”).