Court Opinion

ID: 9959984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-13 09:14:58.34226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:02.839617
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-24-00033-CV
                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                   TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
                                           TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:                                                   §

BARNEY DONALSON, JR., D/B/A
                                                         §       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
GOD’S PROPERTY MINISTRIES,

RELATOR                                                  §

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            PER CURIAM
         Barney Donalson, Jr., d/b/a God’s Property Ministries, acting pro se, filed this original
proceeding in which he raises four issues: (1) whether a permanent injunction and final
judgment, entered pursuant to a settlement agreement with a party, is valid and enforceable on a
subsequent non-party property owner; (2) whether a city is exempt from having to post an
injunction bond; (3) whether a district court judge abuses his discretion by refusing to set
hearings or otherwise consider a bill of review, and (4) whether a district court abuses his
discretion by refusing to “consider setting aside a permanent injunction closing a house of
worship, when such prospective relief is now specifically prohibited not only by statutory law
but also by a voter approved constitutional amendment.” 1
         According to the record, Respondent signed a stipulated permanent injunction and final
judgment on July 6, 2020, in trial court cause number 19-00185. Relator subsequently filed a
new lawsuit in Harris County, Texas, trial court cause number 2022-11623. That court signed an
order granting a preliminary injunction on August 28, 2023, which Real Parties in Interest, the

         1
             Respondent is the Honorable Chris B. Martin, Judge of the 294th District Court in Van Zandt County,
Texas.
City of Canton and City Attorney David Ritter, contend conflicts with the judgment in the Van
Zandt County case. RPIs filed a petition in intervention in the Harris County case, along with
a motion to transfer the case to Van Zandt County. The motion to transfer was granted and the
case was transferred to Van Zandt County. Relator filed this original proceeding on March 1.
       Relator has filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding on grounds that Respondent
scheduled a hearing for May 29 to consider the matters raised by God’s Property Ministries. The
order setting hearing identifies the subject of the hearing as indigency hearing/standing. Relator
provides this Court with emails reflecting that he contacted the court coordinator to express his
understanding that all pending motions would be considered.            On March 28, the court
coordinator responded that Relator did request that his motions be set at the indigency hearing
and was supposed to be submitting a notice setting. On April 3, the court coordinator informed
Relator that Respondent stated that the hearing was an “indigency hearing… and on standing
only by submission.” RPIs filed a response to Relator’s motion to dismiss, urging denial of
Relator’s motion. RPIs maintain that this Court should consider Relator’s petition because: (1)
the scheduled hearing is not intended to address all of Relator’s issues, and (2) Relator presented
no matters to Respondent which have been “rejected by the trial court that present an issue
subject to mandamus action.” Because Relator’s motion to dismiss is opposed and because
grounds exist for denying mandamus relief, we overrule the motion to dismiss.
       In his mandamus petition, Relator complains that (1) the permanent injunction is void
because the City was not required to file a bond, (2) Ritter concealed a deed granting Relator an
interest in the subject property, concealed a mortgage lien on the property, filed a deed
conveying the property but the grantee refused the deed, and failed to disclose that everyone did
not agree to the proposed settlement agreement, (3) Respondent exceeded his jurisdiction by
granting the permanent injunction, and (4) the injunction violates the First and Fourth
Amendments, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Texas Constitution,
and Texas statutes. He seeks a writ of mandamus instructing Respondent to alter or amend the
injunction to set a bond, vacate relief that exceeds Respondent’s jurisdiction, remove restrictions
that prevent him from accessing the subject property, and hold a bill of review hearing.
       For two reasons, we conclude that Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief. First,

                                                2
Relator’s issues collaterally attack the permanent injunction and final judgment. 2 A permanent
injunction that disposes of all issues and parties is a final, appealable judgment. In re Petrobras
Am., Inc., No. 14-18-00801-CV, 2018 WL 4700043, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
Sept. 25, 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (denying petition for writ of
mandamus seeking vacatur of an amended arbitration injunction, which served as appealable
final judgment). And mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal, even if the appellate
remedy is no longer available. 3 See In re Sims, No. 12–15–00190–CV, 2016 WL 4379490, at
*1 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 17, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Devon Energy
Prod. Co., L.P., 321 S.W.3d 778, 784 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2010, orig. proceeding). Second, the
record does not indicate that Relator first presented his issues to Respondent before seeking
mandamus relief. Equity is not generally “served by issuing an extraordinary writ against a trial
court judge on a ground that was never presented in the trial court and that the trial judge thus
had no opportunity to address.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding); see In re Emerson, No. 12-19-00049-CV, 2019 WL 1141767, at
*4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 12, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). “Mandamus relief generally
requires a predicate request for an action and a refusal of that request.” Le, 335 S.W.3d at 814;
see Emerson, 2019 WL 1141767, at *4. Accordingly, for these reasons, we deny Relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny Relator’s motion for sanctions. We overrule all
pending motions as moot.

Opinion delivered April 10, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

         2
           To the extent Relator’s contention that the permanent injunction is void for lack of a bond may be
reviewable, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 684’s bond requirement does not apply to permanent injunctions. See
Torres v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. For Supreme Court of Tex., No. 05-21-00651-CV, 2022 WL
4115487, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 9, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Bond is not required for a permanent
injunction. Ridgepoint Rentals, LLC v. McGrath, Nos. 09-16-00393-CV, 09-17-00006-CV, 2017 WL 6062290, at
*10 n.8 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Dec. 7, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
         3
           We also note that Relator previously attempted to appeal from the temporary injunction in trial court
cause number19-00185. See Donalson v. City of Canton, No. 12-20-00164-CV, 2020 WL 6164470 (Tex. App.—
Tyler Oct. 21, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). We dismissed the appeal as moot because (1) the trial court
had already entered a permanent injunction, and (2) the City filed a nonsuit as to Relator; thus, there was no longer a
case or controversy between Relator and the City. Id. at *2. Accordingly, a question exists as to whether Relator
even possesses standing to challenge the permanent injunction.

                                                          3
                                  COURT OF APPEALS
     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                          JUDGMENT

                                            APRIL 10, 2024

                                        NO. 12-24-00033-CV

          BARNEY DONALSON, JR., D/B/A GOD’S PROPERTY MINISTRIES,
                                   Relator
                                     V.

                               HON. JUDGE CHRIS B. MARTIN,
                                        Respondent

                                       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

              ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Barney Donalson, Jr., d/b/a God’s Property Ministries; who is the relator in appellate cause
number 12-24-00033-CV and a party to trial court cause number Cause No. 19-00185, in the
294th Judicial District Court of Van Zandt County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus
having been filed herein on March 1, 2024, and the same having been duly considered, because it
is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED,
ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby
denied.
                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

                                                     4