Court Opinion

ID: 9927718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 20:12:43.668737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:29.566387
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued January 23, 2024

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-24-00025-CV
                            ———————————
                  IN RE FELICIA NICOLE JONES, Relator

            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      On January 9, 2024, relator, Felicia Nicole Jones, a vexatious litigant subject

to a prefiling order, filed several documents with this Court, which we construe as a

petition for a writ of mandamus.1

1
      The underlying case is Felicia Nicole Jones v. Louis Vuitton, Mercedes-Benz of
      Houston Greenway, Toll Brothers, and Mazda North American Operations, et al.,
      Cause No. 75486-CV, in the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the
      Honorable Justin R. Gilbert presiding.
       As noted above, relator has been declared as a vexatious litigant and is subject

to a pre-filing order, entered by the 412th District Court of Brazoria County on May

19, 2014. Generally, the Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal or original

proceeding in a civil matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing

order unless: (1) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge

permitting the filing or (2) the litigant is appealing from a pre-filing order declaring

the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a).

Here, relator has not provided the Court with any indication that she obtained

permission from the local administrative judge prior to filing her mandamus petition.

       Relator’s petition appears to request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus

to “overturn[]” the pre-filing order to “give an innocent person rights to suit without

[j]udicial [c]ouncil’s [l]ist hovering in one’s identity.” Along with her petition for

writ of mandamus, relator also filed a “Motion Request Permission to Fil[e] a

Pre[-]filing Order; Civil Practice and Remedies Code Subsection 11.102(a)

[P]ermitting the [F]iling.” Relator further states that she seeks to “enforce[e] [a]

Motion for Mandamus and Leave to File for permission to take this case to the

judge,” and that she seeks to “[r]emove [v]exatious [l]itigant from the [n]ational

[l]ist.”

       Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to

establish that she is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(j),

                                           2
52.8(a); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Accordingly,

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any

pending motions are dismissed as moot.

                                 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.

                                         3