## NO. 12

- 23

- 00317

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

PHILIP J. EMERSON J R. , APPELLANT

V.
HOLLY LAKE RANCH ASSOCIATION, BRIAN SOUTH, RODNEY DUPLECHAIN, DENNIS DOSSEY, DAN OUIMET, BELINDA FLOWERS, PAM SCHMIDT, CHUC K BAHR, DANNY JACKSON, MONICA MIBRADT, DARRELL COOK, BOB BYLLA, SANDRA WELLS, JERRY KEY, HARTZEL BLACK AND CRAIG M. DAUGHERTY , APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 402ND

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Philip J. Emerson, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal challenging an inability to pay order of March 12, 2020 , and a vexatious lit igant prefiling order of August 18, 2020

. On December 1 9 , 202 3, this Court notified Emerson that the notice of appeal failed t o show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, the order being appealed is not appealable

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37 .2. We further not ified Emerson that t he appeal would be dismissed unles s the i nformation was amended on or before December 2 9 to show the jur isdiction of the Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Emerson filed var ious motions, but none establish the jurisdi ction of this Court

. Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appe llate c ourts have jurisdiction only to review final judgments. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC , 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex. 2018)

. It appears fr om Emerson ’ s notice of appeal that the district clerk challenged his statement2 of inability to pay costs and that the order thereon is the one from which he appeals. But a moti on challenging such a ruling must b e filed with the appr opriate court of appeals within ten days after the order is s igned

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145 (g). Emerson ’ s notice of appe al filed on December 15, 2023, comes to o late to be const rued as a timely motion to challenge the trial
court ’ s r uling. N or is such a n order subject to interlocutory appeal

. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023 ) (appeal from int erlocutory o rder). Eve n if it were an appeala ble order , Emerson filed his notice of appeal long af ter the time e xpired for filing a n otice of appeal ( or extension of time to file a notice of app eal) fro m a 2020 order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1 (time to pe rfect appeal in civil cases); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3 (extension of time)

. Because the inabi lity to pa y ord er is not a final jud gment or appealable interloc utory order, we lack ju risdictio n over his appea l with respect t o that order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a)

. Moreover, in the vexatious litigant order , the 402nd District Co urt of Wood C ounty fou nd Emerson vexatio us pursuant to Section 11.101 of the civil practice and remedies c ode

. See T E X

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 11.101(a) (West 2017 ) (court may enter order prohibiting person from filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to whic h order a pplies without permission of appropriate local administrative judge if court finds pers on is vex atious). The order prohi bits Emerson from filing , pr o se, new litigation in the 402nd District Court without permission of the appropriat e local a dmin istrative judge. However , a prefiling order entered by a district court applies to each court i n this st ate. Id . § 11.101(e)

. A vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order is proh ibited from fil ing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which the order applies without seeking t he permission of:

(1) the local administrativ e judge of the type of court in which the vexatious litigant intends to file, except as provided by Subdivision ( 2); or (2) the local ad ministrative district judge of the county in which the vexatious litigant i ntends to fi le if the litigant intends to fi le in a justice or constitutional county court.

Id . § 11.102(a) (West 2017). A clerk of a court may not file a litigation, orig inal proc eeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the liti gant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge described permitting the filing. Id . § 11.1 03(a) (West 2017 ). Emers on could have appealed from the vexatious litigant order. See id

. § 11.101(c) (West 2017) (“litigant may appeal from a prefiling order entered under Subsection (a) designati ng the person a vexatious litigant”). But the prefiling order was signed3 on August 18, 2020 ; thus, Emerson ’ s notice of appeal filed on Decemb er 15 , 2023, is untimely for perfecting an appeal from the prefiling order. See Reule v. Chism , No. 12

- 23

- 00080

- CV, 2023 WL 3157978, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Apr. 28, 2023, no pet. ) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ( noting that notice of appeal filed on March 2 0, 2023, was untimely for perfecting appeal from May 21, 2019, prefiling order ); see also Restrepo v. Alliance Riggers and Co nstructors, Ltd. , No. 08

- 15

- 00011

- CV, 2015 WL 999950, at *2 ( Tex. App.

— El Paso Mar. 4, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction purported appeal from v exatious litigant prefiling order for untimely notice of appeal)

. And w ith respect to the inability to pay order , Emerson has

no t provided thi s Court w ith a n order from the local administrative judge permittin g the filing of the appeal

. See T EX

. C IV

. P RA C

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 11.10 35(b) (West 2017) (court shall dismiss litigation unless plaintiff obtains ord er from appropriate local administrati ve judge permitting filing of litigation); see also Reule , 2023 WL 3157978 , at *2 ( dismissing for want of jurisdi ction appeal by ve xatious l itigant for failure to obtain permission from local administrative judge ); Yazdchi v. J P Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , No . 01

- 1 7

- 00301

- CV, 2017 WL 2255773, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] May 23, 2017, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ( same ). Accordingly , for the above reasons, even with an order granting Emerson permission to appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction ove r the appeal

. W e dismiss the appeal for want of juris d iction and overr ule all pending motions as moot

.

Opinion delivered January 3, 2024

. Panel consisted of Worthen , C.J., Hoyl e, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TW ELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRIC T OF TEXAS

J UDGMENT

J ANUARY 3, 2024

NO
. 12-23-00317- CV

P HILIP J. EMERSON JR. , Appellant V. HOLLY LAKE RA N CH ASSOCIA T ION, BRIAN SOUTH, RODNEY DUPLECHAIN, DENNIS DOSSEY, DAN OUIMET, BELINDA FLOWERS, PAM SCHMIDT, CHUCK BAHR, DANNY JACKSON, MONICA MIBRADT, DARRELL COOK, BOB BYLLA, SANDRA WELLS, JERRY KEY, HARTZEL BLACK AND CRAIG M. DAUGHERTY , Appellee s

A ppeal f rom the 402nd District Co urt of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2019-680)
T HIS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same bei ng cons id ered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is wi thout juri sd i ction of the appeal, and th at the ap peal should b e dismissed. I t is th erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by t his Cou rt th at th is appeal be, and the same is, hereby dis m issed for w a nt of j ur isdiction ; a nd that this decision be certi fied to the court b el o w for observ ance.

B y per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Wo rthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J

.