Opinion filed December 9, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-21-00246-CV

___________

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 of appeal from an 

order in which the trial court denied Appellant’s Rule 202 petition for pre-suit 

depositions. See TEX. R. CIV. 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 in an anticipated 

suit. TEX. R. CIV. 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 complain 
2

about various ultra vires acts allegedly committed by state officials 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 Appellant on October 27, 2021, and informed 

him that the order from which he attempted to appeal did not appear to be an 

appealable order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to 

continue the appeal. We have received a response from Appellant in which he 

asserts that the order entered by the trial court 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 someone 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 subsequent 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. Fitzgerald, 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, the 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. Consequently, 

the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s Rule 202 petition is not a final, appealable 

order. See Jorden, 249 S.W.3d at 419. Furthermore, there is no statute authorizing 

an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a Rule 202 petition to depose 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, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3. 

PER CURIAM

December 9, 2021

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.