No. 4-15-00012-CV

____________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT SAN ANTONIO

____________________________________________________________________

JOHN E. RODARTE SR.

APPELLANT

V.

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS AND SHERIFF RALPH LOPEZ, ET AL.

APPELLEES 

____________________________________________________________________

APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

____________________________________________________________________

ACCEPTED

04-15-00012-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/13/2015 12:54:54 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/13/15 12:54:54 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
1

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTH COURT:

Bexar County, Texas and Sheriff Ralph Lopez, appellees in this cause, move 

the court to dismiss this appeal:

I.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the 57th District Court of Bexar County, 

Texas, which was signed on December 5, 2011. This appeal arises from Trial Court 

No. 2005-CI-18884. This same trial court case was appealed to this court and 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on May 8, 2013 in Rodarte v. Bexar County, 2013 

Tex. App. LEXIS 5576 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 8, 2013). That opinion was 

appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and petition for review was denied on 

September 27, 2013 in case number 13-0388 at Rodarte v. Bexar County, 2013 Tex. 

LEXIS 812 (Tex. Sept. 27, 2013) with a motion for rehearing denied at Rodarte v. 

Bexar County, 2013 Tex. LEXIS 1027 (Tex. Dec. 6, 2013). 

II.

2. Therefore, appellees ask that this court dismiss this matter based on either or 

both of the two legal principles below.

"Res judicata, or claims preclusion, prevents the relitigation of a claim or cause 

of action that has been finally adjudicated, as well as related matters that, with the use 

of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit." Barr v. Resolution Trust 

Corp. ex rel Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992). It requires proof of 
2

three elements: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent 

jurisdiction, (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them, and (3) a second 

action based on the same claims that were raised or could have been raised in the first 

action. Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). All 

three elements are met here. Because Rodarte previously raised or could have raised 

the same claims raised here, the previous judgment and dispositions in this court and 

the Texas Supreme Court preclude its relitigation here.

"Law of the case" doctrine is defined as that principle under which questions of 

law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its 

subsequent stages. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593, 596 

(Tex. 2006). Under the doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial 

decision if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case. Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 

102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003). The doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of 

decision as well as judicial economy and efficiency through narrowing the issues at 

successive stages of litigation. Id. "The doctrine is based on public policy and is 

aimed at putting an end to litigation." Id. "Application of the doctrine lies within the 

discretion of the court, depending upon the particular circumstances surrounding [the] 

case." Id.; see also LeBlanc v. State, 826 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th 

Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd) (stating that appellate courts have discretion to depart from 

"law of the case" doctrine in exceptional circumstances).
3

The doctrine has been held to apply "to implicit holdings, i.e., conclusions that 

are logically necessary implications of positions articulated by the court, as well as 

explicit ones." Intern. Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, No. 14-98-00324-CR, 2000 Tex. 

App. LEXIS 3752, 2000 WL 729384 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] June 8, 2000, 

pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (citing Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 46 F.3d 

1347, 1351 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995)).

Law of the case should apply to this matter since all of the issues raised by 

appellant have been addressed by this court in the previous appeal. Appellant has

presented no exceptional circumstances to depart from the law of the case doctrine 

and have this case proceed. Appellant simply is unsatisfied with the previous result 

and continues to abuse the court system by filing a subsequent appeal and lower court 

proceedings over a matter previously decided by the trial court, this Court and the 

Texas Supreme Court.

III.

Appellees would also request the Court admonish appellant to stop filing 

frivolous pleadings in this court and below. His case has been finally determined and 

he is wasting the Court’s resources and those of the Bexar County, Texas taxpayers’

by continually pursuing this matter.
4

IV.

THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, appellees, Bexar 

County, Texas and Sheriff Ralph Lopez request that the Court enter an order

dismissing this matter and admonishing appellant.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Clarkson F. Brown

Clarkson F. Brown

State Bar No. 00798082

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

-Civil Division

101 W. Nueva, Suite 735

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030

Telephone: (210) 335-3918

Telecopier: (210) 335-2773

Attorney for Appellees

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been sent by certified mail on this the 13th day of July, 2015, to the 

following:

John E. Rodarte Sr. CMRRR # 7014 1200 0001 2586 7615

TDCJ 1263270

Clements Unit

9601 Spur 591

Amarillo, TX 79107-9606

Pro Se

/s/Clarkson F. Brown

Clarkson F. Brown