Court Opinion

ID: 9382927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 06:09:14.450773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.500167
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 21, 2023

                                    S   In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-23-00076-CV

                 IVERY CLARK WILLIAMS, Appellant
                               V.
           JUDGE TED AKIN AND SAMUEL J. POLAK, Appellees

                 On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06220-D

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Nowell
      We questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal because there did not appear

to be either a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We directed

appellant to file a letter brief addressing the jurisdictional issue with an opportunity

for appellees to file a response.

      Generally, this Court has jurisdiction over final judgments and certain

interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §
51.014(a) (listing appealable interlocutory orders). A final judgment is one that

disposes of all parties and claims. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

      Appellant filed a lawsuit against appellees Samuel Polak and Judge Ted

Akin. Polak filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court granted it by order signed

on December 19, 2022. Appellant’s claims against Judge Akin remain pending.

As noted in appellee Samuel Polak’s letter brief, the record does not reflect that

Judge Akin has been served. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Penn, 363

S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1962) (holding judgment that disposed of all claims against

all defendants except one which was never served was final and appealable where

there was nothing to indicate that petitioner ever expected to obtain service upon

that defendant). Nothing in the record before this Court reflects that appellant does

not intend to serve Judge Akin. In his letter brief, appellant demonstrates his intent

to pursue his claims against both appellees. He fails, however, to explain how this

Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.

      Because a final judgment has not been rendered, we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

                                                /Erin A. Nowell/
                                                ERIN A. NOWELL
                                                JUSTICE
230076F.P05

                                          –2–
                                  S
                          Court of Appeals
                   Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              JUDGMENT

IVERY CLARK WILLIAMS,                   On Appeal from the County Court at
Appellant                               Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas
                                        Trial Court Cause No. CC-22-06220-
No. 05-23-00076-CV       V.             D.
                                        Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
JUDGE TED AKIN AND SAMUEL               Justices Reichek and Garcia
J. POLAK, Appellees                     participating.

    In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

Judgment entered March 21, 2023

                                  –3–