Court Opinion

ID: 9915017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 09:10:16.963567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:44.373696
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                     EL PASO, TEXAS

 VERONICA CHAVEZ VARA,                            §               No. 08-23-00350-CV

                               Appellant,         §                 Appeal from the

 v.                                               §            Local Administrative Judge

 MARK STEVEN VARA,                                §             of El Paso County, Texas
                                                              (41st Judicial District Court)
                               Appellee.          §
                                                                 (TC#2012DCM10912)

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant was declared a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order that prohibits her

from filing any new pro se litigation relating to the property division in her Original Decree of

Divorce without first obtaining permission from the local administrative judge. OFFICE OF COURT

ADMINISTRATION, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order, Veronica Vara,

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1456705/veronica-vera.pdf (last visited December 21, 2023);

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101, 11.102(a). On August 4, 2023, the local

administrative judge, Judge Annabell Perez, issued an order denying Appellant permission to

proceed with further litigation in a matter related to her Original Decree of Divorce in the 388th
District Court of El Paso County. 1 Appellant filed the instant restricted appeal of the Order on

December 6, 2023.

          “[A] local administrative judge’s decision denying a vexatious litigant permission to file a

litigation is not grounds for appeal, except that the litigant may apply for a writ of mandamus with

the court of appeals not later than the 30th day after the date of the decision.” Nunu v. Risk, 612

S.W.3d 645, 655–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. denied) (quoting TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(f)). Even if Appellant had requested that we treat her restricted

appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus in the alternative, it would be untimely, as she filed it

well after the 30-day window following the date of the Order. See id. at 656. And because our

statutory authority to address what should be a petition for writ of mandamus in this instance is

time-limited, we are without jurisdiction to address its merits. See In re Johnson, 390 S.W.3d 584,

586 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, no pet.).

          Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                LISA J. SOTO, Justice

December 29, 2023

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

1
    Court of Appeals, No. 08-23-00191-CV.

                                                   2