Court Opinion

ID: 9895111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 10:17:45.362424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:06.986499
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00259-CV

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                           TYLER, TEXAS

AUTHOR JAMES MANNING JR.,                                §        APPEAL FROM THE 307TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                       §        JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
TEXAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS AND                            §        GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS
IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.M.,
APPELLEES

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            PER CURIAM

        On October 3, 2023, Author James Manning, Jr. filed a pro se notice of appeal. On
October 4, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain
the information specifically required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, 10.1(a), and
25.1(d), and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 9.5 (service), 10.1(a) (contents of motions), 25.1(d) (contents of notice); see also TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on
each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notice warned that, unless
Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before October 16, the appeal would be referred
to the Court for dismissal. 1 Also on October 4, this Court notified Manning that the notice of
appeal failed to show the jurisdiction of the Court, namely, there is no final judgment or
appealable order contained therewith. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. We further notified Manning

         1
           Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable
rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by
counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—
Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended on or before October 16
to show this Court’s jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. On October 5 and 9, Manning filed
amended notices of appeal.           The notices still fail to comply with Rule 25.1 and do not
demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction.           Nor did Manning otherwise respond to this Court’s
jurisdictional notice.
        Additionally, we note that courts possess inherent powers that aid the exercise of their
jurisdiction, facilitate the administration of justice, and preserve the independence and integrity
of the judicial system. Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Products, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, 718 (Tex.
2020). Because inherent powers must be used sparingly, appellate courts have consistently held
that the inherent power to sanction exists to the extent necessary to deter, alleviate, and
counteract one’s bad faith abuse of the judicial process. Id. Bad faith includes intentional
conduct, the conscious doing of a wrong for a dishonest, discriminatory, or malicious purpose, as
well as the intent to engage in conduct for an impermissible reason, willful noncompliance, or
willful ignorance of the facts.            Id. at 718-19. “Errors in judgment, lack of diligence,
unreasonableness, negligence, or even gross negligence—without more—do not equate to bad
faith.” Id. at 719. “Improper motive, not perfection, is the touchstone.” Id. Bad faith can be
established by direct or circumstantial evidence, but absent direct evidence, the record must
reasonably give rise to an inference of intent or willfulness. Id.
        The petition in trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR (also 2001-1995) was filed in
2001 and an order establishing the parent child relationship was entered in 2002. This Court has
no record of Manning timely appealing from the order. 2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (notice of
appeal must be filed within thirty days after judgment signed or within ninety days if
postjudgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law is timely filed, or
within twenty days after judgment or order signed in accelerated appeal). Beginning in 2021,
Appellant filed notices of appeal from trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR, each time
contending that he is not the child’s father, and we dismissed the appeals for failure to comply
with applicable appellate rules. See Manning v. State of Texas and In the Interest of S.M., No.
12-23-00203-CV, 2023 WL 5978202 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 13, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam)
(mem. op.); Interest of A.S.M., No. 12-22-00257-CV, 2022 WL 16558446 (Tex. App.—Tyler

        2
           This Court searched txcourts.gov for other related appeals regarding trial court cause number 2001-1995-
DR (and 2001-1995) and it appears that while Manning filed appeals in other courts, they were not timely filed with
respect to the 2002 order.

                                                        2
Oct. 31, 2022, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Interest of A.S.M., No. 12-21-00005-CV, 2021
WL 761730 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 26, 2021, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Yet, Manning
continues to appeal from this cause number, without complying with applicable appellate rules,
explaining why this Court has jurisdiction, or otherwise responding to this Court’s notices. 3 At a
minimum, this conduct reasonably gives rise to an inference of willfulness. See Brewer, 601
S.W.3d at 719; see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1630 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “willful” as
“[v]oluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious”). Manning’s (1) repeatedly filing
proceedings to raise the same contention, namely that he is not the child’s father and the trial
court’s 2002 order establishing the parent child relationship should be reversed (and sometimes
seeking damages), and (2) failing to respond to jurisdictional notices and comply with appellate
rules, resulting in the proceeding’s dismissal in each appeal, wastes judicial and fiscal resources
and constitutes bad faith abuse of the judicial process. See Ex parte Green, 596 S.W.3d 498,
502-03 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, orig. proceeding) (Green’s habit of continually raising “same
incoherent and incomprehensible issues in appellate cause numbers that have been resolved and
closed” “caused a complete waste of judicial resources as to constitute an abuse of the judicial
process for which Green may be sanctioned”). Accordingly, any further attempts by Manning to
file a direct appeal in trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR, including cause number 2001-
1995, will be deemed an abuse of the judicial process. Under such circumstances, this Court will
consider its broad range of inherent powers, including its power to sanction.
         Pursuant to our inherent power to control this Court’s docket, we direct Manning to
refrain from filing additional direct appeals from trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR,
including cause number 2001-1995.              We dismiss the appeal pursuant to appellate Rule 42.3(c)
and for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own
initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal

         3
           In addition to the four appeals in trial court cause number 2001-1995-DR, Manning has filed numerous
appeals regarding other causes, all of which we denied or dismissed. See Manning v. Longview Social Security
Office, No. 12-23-00229-CV, 2023 WL 6369778 (Tex. App.—Tyler Sept. 29, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem.
op.); Manning v. Viacom CBS, Inc., No. 12-23-00113-CV, 2023 WL 4308652 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2023,
no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Manning v. Longview Social Security Office, No. 12-21-00241-CV, 2022 WL
243195 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan. 26, 2022, pet. denied) (per curiam) (mem. op.). In the present appeal, Manning
failed to file a docketing statement or respond to this Court’s notice questioning jurisdiction. In virtually all the
proceedings he files, Manning regularly fails to comply with service requirements and other applicable appellate
rules and his notices of appeal consistently fail to contain the contents required by Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 25.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 25.1(d). Manning also habitually fails to respond to this Court’s
jurisdictional notices.

                                                         3
is subject to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a
court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified
time). All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered October 31, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                                          4
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

     TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                         OCTOBER 31, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00259-CV

                   AUTHOR JAMES MANNING JR.,
                            Appellant
                               V.
   THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IN THE
                       INTEREST OF A.S.M.,
                            Appellees

                               Appeal from the 307th District Court
                      of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2001-1995-DR)

                    THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed.

                   It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed both pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 42.3(c) and for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

                   By per curiam opinion.
                   Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.