Court Opinion

ID: 9394377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 08:09:18.744168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.804494
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-23-00089-CV
     ___________________________

   ROGELIO REGALADO, Appellant

                     V.

  SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, Appellee

  On Appeal from the 271st District Court
           Jack County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 21-11-118

    Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Rogelio Regalado, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

refusal to appoint him counsel under Section 24.016 of the Texas Government Code

in his civil suit against Securus Technologies. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.016 (“A

district judge may appoint counsel to attend to the cause of a party who makes an

affidavit that he is too poor to employ counsel to attend to the cause.”). We are

concerned that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal for two reasons. First, the trial-

court clerk has informed us that the trial-court judge has not signed an order on

Regalado’s “Motion for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code

§ 24.016.” It thus appears that no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order

exists in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Second, even if the trial-court judge had

signed an order denying Regalado’s motion, we would not have jurisdiction: such an

order would not be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that our appellate

jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final judgments and from interlocutory orders

made immediately appealable by statute); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§ 51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders).

      We wrote to Regalado to notify him of these jurisdictional concerns, warning

that unless he or any other party desiring to continue the appeal responded within ten

days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we could dismiss the appeal for want

                                            2
of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Ten days have passed with no

response.

       Without a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we do not have

jurisdiction over an appeal. We thus dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

                                                    /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                    Elizabeth Kerr
                                                    Justice

Delivered: May 11, 2023

                                          3