### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00440
- CV

Ryan Sissom, Appellant

v. Soncia Reagins
- Lilly, Andel Filis
- Aime, Kathryn Goodwin, Debra R. Hansen, Kia Hill, Caleb Wong, Hisham Ali, and Laura B. Rich, in Their Official and Indiv idual Capacities, Appellee s

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 18
- 007085, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

In 201 8, Ryan Sissom , acting pro se, sued So ncia Reagins

- Lilly, And el Filis

Aime, Kathryn Goodwin, Debra R. Hanse n, Kia Hill, and Laura B. Rich ( t he UT Officials) and Caleb Wong and Hisham Ali ( t he UT Students) 1 for abuse of proc ess follow ing a charge of plagi arism with administrative sanctions imposed against Sissom and for wron g ful ly en joining Sissom fro m r egist ering for clas ses. In January 2019, t he UT Officials filed a plea to the jurisdiction , which the trial court deni ed after a hearing

. T he UT Offici als later file d an amended

s econd plea to the jurisdiction , and the UT St u dents fi led a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)

. T he trial court conducted a May 9 hearing on both motions , but Sissom did not appear at the hearing. In a May 9 or der following t he hearing , the trial court

1 Wong and Ali were students appointed to serve on a student conduct board to hear an appeal by Sissom from the academic sanctions imposed for the alleged p lag iarism

.2

granted the U T Officia ls ’ plea

. An d in a final May 16 order , the trial court granted the UT Students ’ TCPA motion

. Sissom mo ved for new trials on both o rders

. O n July 1, Sissom filed a notice of appeal from both orders and, acting pro se, raises eight issue s on appe a l

. 2

As a thres hold matter , Sissom ’ s appeal from the May 16 order dismissing the UT Studen ts under the TCPA is accelera ted , see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.008(b) ; Tex. R. App. P. 28.1 (a) , with specific deadlines for the notice of appeal , see Te x. R

. App. P. 26.1(b) , .3 , 28.1( b)

. On August 31, 2020, we required that Sissom respond within 10 days explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the TCPA portion of his appeal when his notice of appeal was not filed withi n the de adline for an a c celerated appeal, s ee In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) ( holding that untimely notice of appeal fails to invoke jurisdiction of court of appeals) ; Connor v. Stephenson , No. 03

- 18

- 00750

- CV, 2018 WL 6816829, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austi n Dec. 28, 2018 , pet. deni ed) (mem. op.) (holding that reviewin g court lacked appellate jurisdiction when no tice of appeal was filed more than 35 days after TCPA order became final ) , and we notified him that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of this portion o f his appeal. To date, Sissom has not respon ded, and we therefore d ismiss that portion of his appeal

a nd do not consider Sissom ’ s second issue regarding the TCPA order or the other issues as they relate to the UT Stu dents

. See Tex. R. App . P. 42.1(a) , ( c )

.

T urn ing to Sissom ’ s appeal from the May 9 ord er , Sissom complains i n h is firs t, third, fourth, and fifth issu es about the trial court ’ s proceeding with a hearing on the UT O fficials ’ am ended se cond plea to the juris d ic tion when Sissom had filed a not ice of vacation.
On April 26, 2019, the UT Officials filed a notice of a May 9 he aring on their am ended second

2 “ [P] ro se appellants are held to the same standards as appellants represented by counsel to avoid giving them an unfair advantage. ” Vaclavik v. Addison , No. 03

- 19

- 00528

- CV, 2021 WL 1704249, at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Apr. 30, 2021, no pet. h. ) (mem . op.)

.3

plea to the jurisdic tion

. On April 29, Sissom filed a n otice of v acation , stat ing “ due to pres sing previous engagements, he will not be avai lab l e f or any scheduled hearings in thi s case between the dates of May 6, 2019 th rough May 21, 2019 ” a nd “ ask [ing] that the Court coordinator and opposing counsel observe and respect his schedules. ” At the May 9 hearing, Sissom d id not
appear . T he UT Offici a ls offe red and the trial court admitted into evidence the April 26 notice of hear ing and notification of service on that date by e

- filing

. 3 In his motion for new trial, Sissom asserted that he “ filed a Notice of Vacation into the record, in hopes of prev e nting [ counsel for the UT Officials] from going to court and obtaining an order o n a motion [presumabl y, the plea] whic h he did not have time to re but ” ; that “ [t]he Notice of Vacation precluded any hear ings between May 6 and May 21, 2019 ” ; and that he “ wa s unawar e tha t a hearing had been held. ” On appeal, he asserts that “ [n]ormally a not ice of vacation i s filed by an attorne y to notice the court that he will not be avail able for hearings during a certa in time ” and that proceeding with the hearing a nd con s idering the fact issue as to whether Sissom coul d attend the hearing was a vio lat ion of his due proces s rights. We disagre e.

Sissom does not deny that he received the notice of the May 9 he ar ing , alt hough he claims he was unaware that a hearing occurre d

. He a ppears to believe that his notice of

va cation “ precluded ” the May 9 hearin g from occurring , but he does not cite any authority for this proposition

. As noted by the UT Officials, t he Council of Judges of the Third Administrative Judicial Region ha v e adopt ed Rules of Adm ini stration that address vacation notice s filed in a distri ct court with in the regi on, including Travi s County district court s . See Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 74.048 (c) (requiring co unc il of judges to adopt regional rules of administration) ; Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 4(c) ( “ The Co uncil of Judges shall adopt rules for the admini stration of the affairs of the

3 The e - fil e “ service contacts ” listed two email addresses for Sissom.4

district and statutory county courts within the administrative region [.] ” )

. Rule 6 prohibits a case from being set for trial when an attorney h as file d a va cation notic e , b ut t he notice “ must be filed at least ninety (90) da y s in advance of each de signated vacati on week, and such a notice shall apply only to cases not already scheduled for trial. ” Third Admin

. Jud. Reg ion , R. A d min. 6 A , B

. To t he exte nt that the May 9 hearing on the plea could be construed as a “ trial , ” Sissom ’ s vacation notice was not filed 90 days prior to the hearing and the hearing was already s cheduled at the time Sissom filed the vacation notice . Rule 6 also provides tha t “ [t]he cour t shall have discretion to consi der a motion for continuance on the ground s of a n attorney ’ s vacat ion in appropriate circumstances not covered by subsection s A and B of t his rule. ” Id. R. 6C. To the extent that Sissom ’ s notice o f vacation co u ld be constr ued as a motion for cont inuance, our rules require “ sufficient c ause suppo rted by affidavit , or by consent of the parties, or by operation of law ” to grant a continuance. Tex. R. Civ. P. 25 1. Sissom did not file an affidavit with his notice o f vacation a nd did not explain his “ pressing previous engagement ” such that it would

c ons titute “ sufficient ca use ” for a continuance. “[P]ro se litigants are not exempt from the rules of procedure , ” Wheel e r v. Green , 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) , and “ [w] hen a mov ant fails to comply with the aff

idavit requirement, reviewing courts gener ally presume the trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion , ” J.G. v. Tex as Dep ’ t of Fam

. & Protective Serv s . , 592 S.W.3d 515, 521 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2 019, no pe t.)

. 4 We therefore overrule Sis som ’ s first, third, fourth, and fifth issu es.

In his sixth issue, Sissom claims that “ Judge Sulak commit[t ed] error when he granted [the UT Officials ’ ] Amended Plea to the Jurisdic tion aft er J udge Gamb le h a d den i ed the

4 For the first time o n appeal, Sissom states that he “had a final exam” on the h earing date

. B ut he did not make su ch an ass ertion in his notice of vacation or in his motion for new trial , and h e does not identify any ev idence in the record of an exam on that date.5

Ple a to the Jurisdiction on January 11, 2019 ” ; that this was “ not only a viol ation of res judicata , but forum shopping ” ; and that “ [n]othing in Texas jurisprudence allows an attorney, once an Orde r has iss ued on a par ticular subject, to ask for ano t her judge ’ s opinion in the same cause of a ction. ” However, “ d istrict courts are aut horized to operate on central

- docket systems” and “[p]ursuant to that authority, the Travis County District Courts have passed local rules p ermittin g the operation of a ro t ating cent ral

- docket system” in which diff erent judges may “hear[] various
motions a nd sign[] orders throughout the proceeding.” Republic Cap. Grp., LLC v. Roberts , No. 03

- 17

- 00481

- CV, 2018 WL 5289573, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Aust in Oct. 25, 2018, no pet.) (mem

. op.). An d “ a trial court has authority t o reconsider i ts own rulings as long as it retains jurisdiction

. ” Garst v. Reagan , No. 03

- 13

- 00243

- CV, 2014 WL 902554, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Mar. 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. Al though r es ju dic ata “ prevents t h e relitiga tion o f a claim or cause of acti on that has been finally adjudicated, as w ell as related matters that , with the use of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit , ” Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav. , 837 S.W.2d 6 2 7, 628 (Te x. 1992) , here there was no “ pri or suit ” addressing jurisdiction nor was t he initial order denying the plea a final adjudicat ion. 5 We overrule Sissom ’ s sixth issue.

In his seventh issue, Sissom complains that the UT Offici als violated local r u les becaus e the certificate of conference was either absent or deficient on the hear ing notices. But to
pre serve error , the record must s how that Sissom made the complaint to th e trial court by a tim ely request, objection, or mot ion

. See T ex. R. App. P. 33.1(a) (1) ; In re B.L.D. , 113 S.W.3d 340,

5 Sissom may have intended to invoke issue preclusion inst ead of res judicat a . But issue preclusion s till invo lves reso lution of issues i n a prior suit. See Bar r v. Resolution Tr . Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav

. , 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992) ( “ Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents relitigation o f parti cular issues already resolved in a pr ior suit. ” ).6

350 (Tex. 2003) (desc ribing “ [i] mportant p rudential c onsiderations [that] underscore our rules

o n preser vation ” )

. Because Sissom did not raise this complaint to the trial court, we overrule Sissom ’ s seventh issue

.

Sissom ’ s eight h issue state s, “ Can anyo ne cons true the violation Sissom is char ge d with to align with the facts ? ” S issom ’ s issue is not entirely clear , and Sissom neither address es this issue in his argument section nor cit e s to any authorities o r to t he record as t o this issue

. Cf. Tex. R. App. P . 38.1 ( re quiring briefing to “ contain a clear an d concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to auth orities and to the record ” ). Moreover, Sissom also notes in his appellate brief , “ This appeal is not about the merits or the cl aims of the [sic] Sissom ’ s case or his pe tition. ” We therefore ov errule Sissom ’ s eight h i ssue.

For these reasons, w e dismiss the appeal in part and having overruled all other issues , we affirm in part.

_________________ _________________________ Melissa Goodwin , Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith Affirmed in P art; Dismissed in P art File d: June 30, 2021