Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed in Part, Dismissed for Lack of 

Jurisdiction in Part, and Denied in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed 

June 17, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00388-CV

IN RE PATRICIA ANN POTTS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-74161

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 21, 2014, relator Patricia Ann Potts filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court for various forms of relief, including 

vacating a February 2010 order designating her a vexatious litigant, compelling the 

Harris County District Clerk and an e-filing service provider to file certain 
pleadings, and compelling various trial court judges to act on her requests for 

litigation.

In February 2010, the Honorable Mike Miller, presiding judge of the 11th 

District Court of Harris County, designated relator a vexatious litigant pursuant to 

Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Pursuant to that 

judgment, relator is subject to a pre-filing order that prohibits her from filing, pro 

se, any new litigation in this state without the prior permission of the local 

administrative judge. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 11.101, 11.102.

As the first issue in her mandamus petition, relator seeks to have the 

vexatious litigant order vacated on the grounds that it is void. Specifically, relator 

asserts the order was issued in violation of her due process rights, the trial court 

lacked jurisdiction to enter the order, and the order was predicated on fraud.

Relator’s assertion that the vexatious litigant order is void because relator 

was deprived of due process has twice been considered by this Court, and 

dismissed both times on the grounds that the order is subject to appeal. See In re 

Potts, No. 14-13-01085-CV, 2014 WL 2039983, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] May 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam); In re Potts, No. 14-

12-00194-CV, 2012 WL 987857, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 22, 

2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 

Code § 11.101(c). Relator fails to acknowledge these prior attempts to obtain 

mandamus relief on the same basis, and provides no explanation why this Court’s 

conclusion should be any different on this, her third, attempt.

Relator’s claims of lack of jurisdiction and fraud appear to be effectively the 

same as her due process argument, just slightly reframed. Relator bases her claims 

2
of lack of jurisdiction and fraud on the allegation that she was wrongfully 

incarcerated and, consequently, did not have notice and an opportunity to be heard. 

See, e.g., In re Park Mem’l Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 322 S.W.3d 447, 450 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding) (“Due process, on a fundamental 

level, requires notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.”). As noted, we have twice 

previously dismissed relator’s due process claim. Given the absence of any 

substantive difference between her due process claim and her claims of lack of 

jurisdiction and fraud, we see no basis for a different outcome as to her jurisdiction 

and fraud claims.

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as it 

pertains to her request for mandamus relief to vacate the order designating her a 

vexatious litigant.

In her second issue, relator seeks mandamus relief with respect to

respondents Harris County District Clerk and File & ServeXpress (an e-filing 

service provider). Our mandamus jurisdiction is limited. By statute, we have 

authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court 

in our court of appeals district, and as necessary to enforce our appellate 

jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Neither the Harris County District 

Clerk nor File & ServeXpress is a judge of a district or county court. Nor is 

issuance of the writ against either of these respondents necessary to enforce our 

jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction as it pertains to the Harris County District Clerk and File & 

ServeXpress.

3
Also in her second issue, relator seeks mandamus relief to compel action by 

three different trial judges with respect to certain litigation requests relator 

purportedly attempted to pursue. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator is 

require to file “a certified or sworn copy of any . . . document showing the matter 

complained of,” Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), and “a certified or sworn copy of 

every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in 

any underlying proceeding,” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). However, relator failed to 

include copies of any of the supposed litigation requests with her petition. “The 

relator generally must bring forward all that is necessary to establish a claim for 

relief.” In re Potts, 399 S.W.3d 685, 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, 

orig. proceeding). Without a sufficient record, relator cannot satisfy her burden to 

demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 

833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Finally, to the extent relator seeks relief from decisions of the local 

administrative judge of Harris County denying relator’s requests to file new 

litigation, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.102(f), relator again fails to 

satisfy her burden. Section 11.102(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code provides that a local administrative judge “may grant permission to a 

vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order . . . to file a litigation only if it 

appears to the judge that the litigation: (1) has merit; and (2) has not been filed for 

the purposes of harassment or delay.” Aside from not including copies of any of 

the litigation requests she attempted to pursue, see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1), 

52.7(a), relator makes no argument whatsoever that any such requests have merit 

4
or were not filed for purposes of harassment and delay, see Tex. R. App. P. 

52.3(h).

Relator has not satisfied her burden to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus 

relief to compel action on her requests for litigation by any of the trial court judges 

identified as respondents. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus as it pertains to these respondents. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby.

5