Opinion filed December 9, 2021



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ ______ 

### No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 24 6

- C V

______ _

____ 

### EDDIE DALE UNDERWOOD , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 259th District Court Jones County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 025324

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant, Eddie Dale Underwood , has filed a pro se notice o f appeal from an order in which the trial court denied Appellant’s Rule 202 petition for pre
- suit deposition s

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 202. Under Rule 202, a person may petition a trial court for an order that authorizes the taking of a deposition to either (1) investigate a potential claim or suit or (2) perpetuate or obtain testimony for use i n an anticipated
suit. T EX

. R. C IV

. P

. 202.1. The documents on file in this court show that Appellant
filed a Rule 202 petition in anticipation of a lawsuit that he intends to file to complain2 about various ultra vires acts allegedly committed by state o fficials and employees involved in the filing and handling of matters related to Appellant’s criminal
conviction. We dismiss the appeal.
The clerk of this court wrote Appel lant on October 27 , 202 1 , and informed
h im that the order from which he attempted to appeal did not appear to be an appealable order . We requested that Appellant respond an d show grounds to
continue the appeal

. We have received a response from Appellant in which he

asserts that the order entered by the trial c ourt under Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure “ operate [s] as a final appealable order and is immediately subject to appellate review.” We disagree. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840

– 41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 , 195 (Tex. 2001). A ruling on a Rule 202 petition constitutes a final, appealable order “ only if [the pre
- suit deposition is] sought from someon e against whom suit is not anticipated.” In re
Jorden , 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008). On the other hand, an order granting or denying a Rule 202 petition for the deposition of a person against whom suit is contemplated is “ considered ancillary to the s ubsequent suit, and thus neither final nor appealable

. ” Id. ; see Caress v. Fortier , 576 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, pet. denied) ; In re Alexander , 251 S.W.3d 798, 799 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) ; Thomas v. Fitzge rald , 166 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2005, no pet.). In his Rule 202 petition for pre

- suit depositions, Appellant asserted that various government officials and employees, whom Appellant sought to depose, colluded to deprive Appellant of his constitutional right of access to the courts and due process of law. Appellant sought to depose the district judge, t he district attorney, the district clerk, a deputy clerk, the district judge’s court administrator,3 and the presiding judge of the local administrative judicial region. Thus, Appellant sought to depose persons against whom he contemplated a lawsuit. Cons equently, the trial court’s order denying A ppellant’s Rule 202 petition is not a final, appealable
order. See Jorden , 249 S.W.3d at 419

. Furthermore, t here is no statute authorizing

an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a Rule 202 petition to dep ose a person against whom suit is contemplated

. Alexander , 251 S.W.3d at 799. Because no appealable order has been entered in this case, we have no jurisdiction to entertain
this appeal

. Consequently, w e dismiss t h e appeal for want of jurisdiction. Se e T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

December 9 , 2021
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams , J.