NO. 12-23-00317-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PHILIP J. EMERSON JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

HOLLY LAKE RANCH 

ASSOCIATION, 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,

APPELLEES

§

§

§

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 litigant prefiling order of August 18, 2020. On 

December 19, 2023, this Court notified Emerson that the notice of appeal failed to show the 

jurisdiction of the Court, namely, the order being appealed is not appealable. See TEX. R. APP. P.

37.2. We further notified Emerson that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information 

was amended on or before December 29 to show the jurisdiction of the Court. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3. Emerson filed various motions, but none establish the jurisdiction of this Court.

Unless specifically authorized by statute, Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only to 

review final judgments. McFadin v. Broadway Coffeehouse, LLC, 539 S.W.3d 278, 283 (Tex.

2018). It appears from Emerson’s notice of appeal that the district clerk challenged his statement 
2

of inability to pay costs and that the order thereon is the one from which he appeals. But a 

motion challenging such a ruling must be filed with the appropriate court of appeals within ten 

days after the order is signed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(g). Emerson’s notice of appeal filed on

December 15, 2023, comes too late to be construed as a timely motion to challenge the trial 

court’s ruling. Nor is such an order subject to interlocutory appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2023) (appeal from interlocutory order). Even if it were an 

appealable order, Emerson filed his notice of appeal long after the time expired for filing a notice 

of appeal (or extension of time to file a notice of appeal) from a 2020 order. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1 (time to perfect appeal in civil cases); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 (extension of time).

Because the inability to pay order is not a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we

lack jurisdiction over his appeal with respect to that order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

Moreover, in the vexatious litigant order, the 402nd District Court of Wood County 

found Emerson vexatious pursuant to Section 11.101 of the civil practice and remedies code. 

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101(a) (West 2017) (court may enter order 

prohibiting person from filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which order applies without 

permission of appropriate local administrative judge if court finds person is vexatious). The 

order prohibits Emerson from filing, pro se, new litigation in the 402nd District Court without 

permission of the appropriate local administrative judge. However, a prefiling order entered by a 

district court applies to each court in this state. Id. § 11.101(e). A vexatious litigant subject to a 

prefiling order is prohibited from filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which the order 

applies without seeking the permission of:

(1) the local administrative judge of the type of court in which the vexatious litigant intends to file, 

except as provided by Subdivision (2); or

(2) the local administrative district judge of the county in which the vexatious litigant intends to 

file if the litigant intends to file in a justice or constitutional county court.

Id. § 11.102(a) (West 2017). A clerk of a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, 

appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless 

the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge described permitting 

the filing. Id. § 11.103(a) (West 2017). Emerson 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) designating the person a vexatious litigant”). But the prefiling order was signed 
3

on August 18, 2020; thus, Emerson’s notice of appeal filed on December 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 20, 2023, was untimely for perfecting appeal from 

May 21, 2019, prefiling order); see also Restrepo v. Alliance Riggers and Constructors, 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 vexatious litigant prefiling

order for untimely notice of appeal). And with respect to the inability to pay order, Emerson has 

not provided this Court with an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of 

the appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.1035(b) (West 2017) (court shall 

dismiss litigation unless plaintiff obtains order from appropriate local administrative judge 

permitting filing of litigation); see also Reule, 2023 WL 3157978, at *2 (dismissing for want of 

jurisdiction appeal by vexatious litigant for failure to obtain permission from local administrative 

judge); Yazdchi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 01-17-00301-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 over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction and overrule all pending motions as moot.

Opinion delivered January 3, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

JANUARY 3, 2024 

NO. 12-23-00317-CV

PHILIP J. EMERSON JR., 

Appellant 

V.

HOLLY LAKE RANCH ASSOCIATION, 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, 

Appellees 

Appeal from the 402nd District Court 

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2019-680) 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that it is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and 

that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.