Court Opinion

ID: 9954846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 08:13:55.082778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:04.813258
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                  No. 06-24-00006-CV

            R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant

                            V.

        ROBERT RAMIREZ, ET AL., Appellees

         On Appeal from the 62nd District Court
                Lamar County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 92217

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
       Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

        R. Wayne Johnson, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s

order dismissing his case with prejudice for failure to comply with his obligations under Section

11.101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 11.101. Upon this Court’s review of Johnson’s filing, we noted a potential defect in our

jurisdiction over this appeal.

        Section 11.102(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides, “A vexatious

litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 is prohibited from filing, pro se, new

litigation in a court to which the order applies without seeking the permission of . . . the local

administrative judge.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(a).1 Although the clerk of

this Court may file an appeal from a prefiling order, the clerk “may not file a litigation, original

proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling

order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local

administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103.

        The record in this matter is devoid of an order from the appropriate local administrative

judge permitting the filing of this appeal. By letter dated February 23, 2024, we notified Johnson

of this potential defect in our jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to show this Court

how it had jurisdiction over this proceeding. We further informed Johnson that he was required

1
 We have previously dealt with Johnson in his capacity as a vexatious litigant. See, e.g., In re Johnson, No. 06-11-
00116-CV, 2011 WL 5135298 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 28, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Johnson,
No. 06-11-00096-CV, 2011 WL 4686502 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 7, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
                                                         2
to respond by March 14, 2024, and that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of his case

for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Johnson did not file a response. We,

therefore, conclude that his case is ripe for dismissal.

       We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                               Charles van Cleef
                                               Justice

Date Submitted:        March 22, 2024
Date Decided:          March 25, 2024

                                                  3