Court Opinion

ID: 9945645
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 07:12:07.939416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:36.027261
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 21, 2024

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-24-00113-CV

                         IN RE TRACY NIXON, Relator

           Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-08065

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Pedersen, III, Reichek, and Carlyle
                             Opinion by Justice Reichek
      We vacate our order dated February 5, 2024. Relator has been declared a

vexatious litigant and is prohibited from filing any new litigation in a court of this

State pro se without first obtaining permission from the appropriate local

administrative judge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(a). Before

the Court is relator’s February 2, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator

challenges a January 2, 2024 order of a local administrative judge denying relator’s

request to file a new lawsuit.

      When a local administrative judge denies a litigant permission to file

litigation, a litigant may apply for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals, but
the application must be filed “not later than the 30th day after the date of the

decision.” Id. § 11.102(f). Here, the administrative judge denied relator’s request to

file litigation on January 2, 2024. Thus, relator’s deadline to apply for a writ of

mandamus was February 1, 2024. Relator did not file his petition for writ of

mandamus until February 2, 2024. Nixon therefore failed to timely file a mandamus

petition pursuant to § 11.102(f). See In re Nixon, No. 03-22-00299-CV, 2022 WL

1720087, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin May 22, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of

jurisdiction.

                                           /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                           AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                           JUSTICE

240113F.P05

                                         –2–