Court Opinion

ID: 9890713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-14 06:10:36.747055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:04.344512
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed October 12, 2023

                                                In The

            Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                           ___________

                                     No. 11-23-00189-CV
                                        ___________

                     CAROL JOHNENE MORRIS, Appellant
                                                    V.
                       ATMOS ENERGY ET AL., Appellees

                         On Appeal from the 238th District Court
                                Midland County, Texas
                            Trial Court Cause No. CV59469

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
        On August 17, 2023, Appellant, Carol Johnene Morris, filed a pro se notice
of appeal in which she stated that she wishes to appeal the trial court’s “order”1
granting the Rule 91a motions to dismiss filed by Appellees, Midland Central

        1
         We note that the trial court’s order granting Atmos Gas’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not on file
with this court, and that the order granting MCAD’s Rule 91a motion to dismiss does not indicate that
MCAD filed its Rule 91a motion jointly, or that the trial court granted its motion jointly, with Atmos Gas.
Therefore, “order” as used in this opinion, refers to the trial court’s order granting MCAD’s motion to
dismiss.
Appraisal District (MCAD) and Atmos Gas. The trial court’s order does not state
that it is a final order, that the order is appealable, or that the order disposes of all
claims and parties. See In re R.R.K., 590 S.W.3d 535, 543 (Tex. 2019) (citing
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001)).
      Upon docketing this appeal, the clerk of this court wrote the parties, in a letter
dated August 18, 2023, and informed them that it did not appear that Appellant was
attempting to appeal from a final, appealable order. We requested that Appellant
respond and show grounds to continue the appeal. We also informed Appellant that
this appeal may be dismissed. Appellant did not respond to our request and show
grounds to continue this appeal; instead, she opted to file an amended notice of
appeal that alleges errors made by the trial court and the district clerk and describes
other appellate remedies she has sought, such as a petition for writ of mandamus and
writ of habeas corpus she claims that she has filed in the Texas Supreme Court.
      Appellate courts may review only final judgments or interlocutory orders
specifically made appealable by statute. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. A trial
court’s interlocutory order granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss is not an appealable
order. See Woodard v. Tu, No. 02-22-00483-CV, 2023 WL 2429796, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Mar. 9, 2023, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (collecting cases).
In this regard, “[i]n cases in which only one final judgment can be rendered . . . a
judgment rendered without a conventional trial on the merits is not final unless (1) it
actually disposes of every pending claim and party or (2) it clearly and unequivocally
states that it finally disposes of all claims and parties.” In re Guardianship of Jones,
629 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex. 2021) (citing Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 205). The trial
court’s order granting two of the Appellees’ Rule 91a motions to dismiss does
neither.

                                           2
        Because the trial court’s interlocutory order is not a final judgment and is not
independently appealable, we are without jurisdiction to consider it. Therefore, we
must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
        Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We also dismiss
Appellant’s “MOTION TO TRANSFER ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS/EXHIBITS
TO COURT OF APPEALS” as moot.

                                                           W. STACY TROTTER
                                                           JUSTICE

October 12, 2023
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J. 2

Williams, J., not participating.

        2
          Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland,
sitting by assignment.
                                                      3