Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 3, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00012-CV

SHANNON MARK DOUTHIT, Appellant

V.

JOHN WEST, TRAVIS TURNER, ROBERT HERRERA, PAUL B. 

WILDER, TAROLYN B. AMERSON, AND KENNETH S. GILBERT, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 506th District Court

Grimes County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 34705

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Shannon Mark Douthit, attempts to appeal the trial court’s order

dismissing his suit against appellees John West, Travis Turner, Robert Herrera, Paul 

B. Wilder, Tarolyn B. Amerson, and Kenneth S. Gilbert, for non-compliance with 

Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 
2

BACKGROUND

Douthit, proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed suit against John West, 

Travis Turner, Robert Herrera, Paul B. Wilder, Tarolyn B. Amerson, and Kenneth 

S. Gilbert requesting damages and injunctive and declaratory relief seeking 

restoration of good time credit and return of his legal materials. Asserting six claims, 

Douthit alleged violations of his civil rights under chapter 42, sections 1983, 1985,

and 1986 of the United States Code, and article 1, sections 3 and 19 of the Texas 

Constitution. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, & 1986; Tex. Const. art. 1, §§ 3, 19. 

Douthit alleged his legal materials and commissary items were confiscated by 

appellee, Correctional Officer Kenneth Gilbert. Douthit’s commissary items were 

returned, but Douthit alleged his legal materials were not returned. Douthit argued 

that his materials were confiscated as retaliation for the exercise of his right to access 

the courts. Douthit further alleged that appellees conspired to harass him and 

retaliate against him for exercising his right to access the courts. Douthit further

alleged that appellees knew of the alleged wrongs to be done to him and neglected 

to prevent them. See 42 U.S.C. § 1986. 

All six defendants/appellees filed an answer to Douthit’s suit. Five of the 

defendants/appellees, West, Herrera, Wilder, Amerson, and Gilbert, filed a motion 

to dismiss Douthit’s suit pursuant to section 14.010 of the Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.010 (permitting dismissal of 

claim for non-compliance with chapter 14). Appellee Travis Turner did not file a 

motion to dismiss Douthit’s suit.

The trial court signed an order dismissing Douthit’s suit for non-compliance 

with chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court recited that 

“Defendants John West, Robert Herrera, Paul Wilder, Tarolyn Amerson and 

Kenneth Gilbert” filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed “this cause of 
3

action” with prejudice. The trial court’s order did not contain language of finality.

ANALYSIS

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all 

pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until 

final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness 

Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001)

When there has been no traditional trial on the merits, no presumption arises 

regarding the finality of a judgment. Crites v. Collins, 284 S.W.3d 839, 840 (Tex. 

2009). Here, the dismissal order does not unequivocally express an intent to dispose 

of all claims and all parties, but specifically disposes only of Douthit’s “cause of 

action” against West, Herrera, Wilder, Amerson, and Gilbert. 

Nothing in the record indicates that Douthit’s claims against Turner were 

dismissed. Accordingly, a signed, written order disposing of Douthit’s claims 

against Turner would be necessary for a final, appealable judgment. See Douet v. 

Romero, No. 14-21-00103-CV, 2021 WL 2324910, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] June 8, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

On June 28, 2021, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless the parties filed a 

response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before July 9, 2021. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Both parties filed responses, but neither appellant’s, nor 

appellees’ response, demonstrated that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court’s order contains no language of finality, and all parties 

and all claims in the trial court were not disposed of, we dismiss this interlocutory 
4

appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

/s/ Jerry Zimmerer

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.