Allen Glenn Thomas v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Officer Marcus A. Adams

Opinion

CSINIB02/CINIB02 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 01116/15 RB51/ES00018 IN~FORMA-PAUPERIS DATA 08:22:13 TDCJ#: 00633145 SID#: 01490530 LOCATION: ROBERTSON INDIGENT DTE: 06/13/0& NAME: THOMAS,ALLEN GLENN BEGINNING PERIOD: PREVIOUS TDCJ NUMBERS: 00298650 CURRENT BAL: 0.00 TOT HOLD .AMT: 52.2& 3MTH TOT DEP: 6MTH DEP: 6MTH AVG BAL: ·6MTH AVG DEP: MONTH HIGHEST BALANCE TOTAL DEPOSITS MONTH HIGHEST BALANCE TOTAL DEPOSITS

PROCESS DATE HOLD AMOUNT HOLD DESCRIPTION NO BANKING ACTIVITY WITHIN THE PAST 6 MONTH PERIOD.

STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OFJo1'f5 ON THIS THE LJ2 DAY OF.)~ "'-.1.\., j , [f, I CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS A TRUE, COMPLETE, AND UNALTERED COPY MADE BY ME OF INFORMATION CONTA~IN Tti~. COMPUTER DATABASE REGARDING THE OFFENDER'S ACCOUNT. NP SIG: ~~ PF1-HELP PF3-END ENTER NEXT TDCJ NUMBER: OR SID NU BER:

·~·

SUPREME COORT OF TEXAS

201 w.l4th st.aec»~ 104

P.O.IOX 12248

Austin,Texas 78711

JanUary 19,2015

ILAKE A.HAWJ.'HORNE CLERK: RECEIVED IN SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

RI:CUe NO.l4--1023 JAN 23 2015 RE:Appellate cause NO.COAtll-12-oD312:CV ~~AKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk -----Deputy

Trial court caU&e N0.022853

Style:AI.LBN GLENN TfDIAS -. ~- .

v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice"oOFPICER . , .MARCUS A.ADAMS,ET.AL~,

Dear Clerk,

Please be advise and file this PBTITICti POR REVIEW, in the abolle cause number

Please stamp and Clate this PETITICti FOR ~lEW', send me back a staq>ecll,dated cOpy·

of it,the date it was received anC1 filed by you in your court.Thank-you,sir for

yOur time, assistance in this legal matter.

sincerely,

ALLEN GLENN THatASI633145

French M.Rdbertson Unit 12071 FM 3522

Abi1ene,Texas 79601

f

(PFR COVER)

.... ...

IN THE

SUPREME COORT OF '1'EXAS

RE:CASE NO.l4~1023

OOAtll-12-oD312-cv

APPELLANT

-vs-

'l'EXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-oFFICER

MARCUS A.ADAMS ET.AL., APPELLEES

PRatt THE 259TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COORT OF

JONES COUNTY,TUAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE N0.022853

PETITI~ FOR REVIEW:

-I-(PFR)

•'· .. • IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

RE:CA$E N0.14~1023

201 w.14th st.RCX»J 104

P.O.IOX 12248

Austin,Taxas 78711

. .

COAI11~12-Q0312~V

FlOJ THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

100 West Main Street,Suite 300

P.O.IOX 271 EASTLAND, TEXAS 76448

. ~ .

' . TRIAL COURT N0.022853

FRat THE 259TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT . .caJRT OP

JONES COON'l'Y, TEXAS

P.O.IOX 429

ANSC)N, TEXAS 79501 . . .

~CH>RAILB IROOKS ft ~HAGLER:

PETITION !'OR REVIEW FOa VACATING OR cciRR.EcTING THE JtJDGMBNT AND ORDER FRat THE

caJRT OF APPBALS-EI.EVBNTif DISTRICT OF TEXAS-AFFIRMED THE ~ OF THE TRIAL

COURT TEX.CIV.PRAC•' REM.~E.CHAPTER 1l,VEXATIOUS .LITIGANT,f11.101-Memrandum

Opinion by wright,c.J.(Panel cerisists of:wrigbt,c.J.,Wi11son,J.,and lailey,J.)

October 9, 2014

-ii-[PFR]

It

A) TO THE HONORAJLE JUSTICB(S) OF SAID OOURT

Comes nw,ALLBN GLENN THOMASiTDCJ-ciDt633145,Pro-Se, ,pgrsuant te

Chapter ll,of the TEX.CIV.PRAC .• , REM.CODE.ill.lOl,TEX.R.APP.RULE 47.l,TJ:X.a.

' ' - : . ! ,.

APP.RULE 52.9

Petitioner will show this Honorable SUPR!ME COURT OF TEXAS,that the COORT OF

APPBALS . FOR THE ELEVEN'l'B DISTRICT OF TEXAS has •BRRORED• ,by AFFIRMING the trial .

CCJurts ORl>ER em October 11,2012,Final judgment,Clismissing TfDIAS'S Claims with

prejuciice,and pursuant to TEX.CIV.PRAC., REM CODE.fll.lOl

Plaintiff asks this Honorable SUPRBME COURT OF TE~As,to be liberally construed:

See:HAINES v.KERNER,404 U.S.519,92 S.C.t~594,30,L.E.Cl.2Cl 652(1972);

MACLIN v.PAOLSON,627 F.2d 83,86(7th Cir.l980)

I.

DISCOVERY AND EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS:

Petitioner weula respectfully,requests that this GGoCl and Henerable Ceurt would

Allew fer Discovery and/~r EviiClentiary hearing to be conducted under TEX.R.APP.P

RULE 47 .l,SO(a) ,90(i),TEX.RULES,CIV .PROC.RULES 166(a),l66(c).

-iii-(PFR)

IDENIW OP PARTIES AND THEIR COONSEL:

A)

SWLE:AI.I.a GLENN 'l'HOMAS

v. Texas DaparU.aent of Ceiminal JuatictM>PFICBR

MMCUS A.ADAMS;ET .AL., . .

cHAaGING OPFICBR{S):

l)Marc:us '.

A.Adama: "

(2:Jamie M.Pritchard:

.,. (3:1rody lack: (4:Diane I.Jarayas:. (S:Molly ' .

S.C8dillo;(6:Wealey P.Hedges:(7:Dale M.Daminguez;(8iJ.Med1llen ;(9:John A.~

SI!:RGEN'r( s)

~)Donald R.Davia: (ll:lrandon D•Wheeler

CAPTIAN(S)

12)William J.lardin:(l3:Rob~ Hardin

14)Janay a.wtlliw

WARDEN(S)

15)Serdor warden BDDXB t.wsULER': (l.6:ASSISTANT(S)JDMY o. IBTCHBR: (17:RIC!SARD G••

18)NILLIM smtiBN oEFBNDMT( s~caJNSm,:

19)ASSxsTANT OFFICE ~ > i .. ?! . ·~ or THE A'l.'1cium GBNisaM.~ristin A.Coblt-P.O.IOX 12548-Capitol ' ~ '~ . :, . . . : : ' ' ·. :c . •. . •

station-Austin,Tuu 7&711

-IV'!'"(PfR)

.. - -

.; ~.,.

•> II.

'l'AILB Oi' caf1'ENTS AND POINTS or ISSUES:

. . .

C) Index of Autberittes Cited •.• ••• ~ •••• • •. •. •. • • • • •. ·:.· • • .VJ. • • • _• • •.PAGE NUIIIER(S)

D)Stateent of case••••••• -••••••••• • •••.• ••••••••••••••••••••• A-J.Q. • •• ~ •.

el'stateent of .:Juriadictien •• ~ •••••••••••• •:•••• ~ ••••••••••••• -• • .l.Q, ••• ~ ••

' .. . . . 10-12 f)Is~es Preswented•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••·····

g)Statements of facts••••••••••••••••••••••••••··•······~···~··))~).~ ~ .';~

••••

h,)~~ ef the arg\IDellt •••••••••••••.• • ••••• ~ •••••••••••••• ~ •••••• ~ •••••

i)Aa:q11Dent ••••••••••••••••••••• -• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • ~ •• ~. ).;>~)..3. •.

j)Prayer •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••• . ~

K)Ar;'JI>endix ••••••••••••••• ~· •••••••••• ~ ~ ~ •• ~ ••• ·•• ~ •••••••••••••••• ~:J-.1. ~ ••• ~ . . . !

l)Necesaary centents,,unless volUudneus or iupractible,tne appendix mtist contain a

(A)The judgment er ether appealable order of the trial court fm whicll rel

i.e£ in the court ef ai?Peals vas sought:

• " • < .i • • •

(i)~e jury charge am verdict,if any;or the trial courts findings •£ fact s and conclusi~ of Lav,if any: (C)Tbe opinien ancil judgnlent Gf the COUrt ef ~ls:and ' • • • • • .. • • • • ~ < • ., • '

(D)The text of any rW.e,regulatien,erdi'nacelstatute,eenstitutiGRal .

prwis -~ ~ . .· '

or1 which the argument is based(Excluding case law)and the ion,er other law

text -.f any c:Gntract er other ca.cument that is central to the argument • .2)0pitienal centents:The appendix _may centain any other it~ pertinent to the iuu es or points presented fer review,including cepies er excerpts of relevant ceurt • pinions,statUtes~censt.itutional pnwisiens,documents en which the suit· vas based, Pleadings and similar material. Items should net be inCJ:uded in the appendix te att 8q)t te aveid the page limts for the petiticm.

-V-(PFR]

·- ,....

,

t C)

IlllDBX OP AU'l'HOIU'l'Y CITED:

CASES: fAGB NUMUR(S) !)Leonard v.Abbott,171 s.w.3d 451 at 156-58(Tex.App.-Austin,2005,pet.denied).l1;13; 2o 2)Durm v.Calhoun,299 s.W.3d 360 at 369-70(Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) •••••••• 11 3}Sax v.Votteler,648 S.W.2d 661 at 664(Tex.1983) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13 4}NELSON v.KRUSEN,678 S.W.2d 918 at 92l(Tex.l984} ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14 5)LONE STAR GAS OO.v.RAILROAD COM'N,767 S.W.2d 709 at 710-711(Tex.l989) •••• 15

6)WEST v.ROBINSON,180 S.W.3d 575 at 576-77(Tex.2005) ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15 7)Walp v.Williams,330 s.W.3d 404 at 407(Tex.App.-FortWorth 2010,no.pet) •••••••• l6 8)SCOTT v.Dep't of Crim.Justice-Institutiomnal Div.2008,Tex.App.LEXIS 894l(Tex.App.-corpus Christi Nov.2008) ••••••••••••••••••••••• l?~!~ .............. l7;18;19 9)Spiller v.Spil1er,21 S.W.3q 451 at 454(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000,no.pet)· •••••••• 17 10)In re Marriage of Grossnickle,ll5 s.w.3d 238 at 252(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003,no.pet) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• l7

1l)Disher v.Huitt-Zollars,Inc.,l62 S.W.3d 370 at 377(Tex.App.-Dallas 2005,no.pet).l7

12)Nabelek v.Johnson,N0.04-Q3-Q0269-CV,Tex.App.LEXIS 259l,at *9-lO(Tex.App.-

San Antonio,Apr.6,2005,pet.denied) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 18;19

13)ALLEN GLENN THOMAS v.TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CEIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL (Tex.App.-EASTLAND,June 12,2014}(no hearing conducted) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• l9

14)Tuner v.Grant,2011 Tex.App.-LEXIS 9250(Tex.App.-Amari11o,Nov 22,2011) •••••• 20;22

15)Zieba v.Martin,928 s.W.2d 782 at 786(Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist]1996,no writ)20;22

16)Crawford v.Hope,898 s.w.2d 937 at 940-41(Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995,writ denied)@):@@

•.........•...........•..••....................• ~- .........•..•........•..•..•...•. 20:22

17)Downer v.Aquamarine Operators,Inc.701 S.W.2d 238 at 241-42tTex.l985) ••••••• 20

18)THOMAS v.KNIGHT,52 S.W.3d 292 at 294-95(Tex.App.-corpus CHRISTI,2001) •• 20;23 19)Devo11 v.State,l55 s.W.3d 498 at 502(Tex.App.-San Antonio 2004) •••••• 20;22

~vi-(fPR]

.. -.

C) III.

INDEX OF AUTHORITY CITED:

CASES: PAGE NUMBER( S) 20)IN RE PRUDENTIAL INS.,CO.QF AMERICA,l48 S.W.3d 124 at 135-36(Tex.2004) ••• 21

21)5rown v.McLenna County Children's Protective Sers.,627 s.w.2d 390 at 393(Tex.l982)21

22)Brady v.united States,397 u.S.742,748,90 s.c.t.l463,25 t.E.d.2d 747(1970) •• 21

23)DALLAS MOFNING NEWS v.FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS,842 S.W.2d 655 at 658(Tex.l992).21 24)Walker v.Packer,827 s.W.2d 833 at 840(Tex.l992) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 21;23

i

25)Yarbrough,898 S.W.2d 251 at 253(Tex.l995) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 23

26)Retzlaff v.GOAMERICA COMMUNS Corp.356 S.W.3d 689 at 702,2011 Tex.App.

tEXIS 8020(Tax.App.-E1Paso 2011}.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••23

27THOMAS v.SKINNER,54 S.W.3d 845 at 846-47(Tex.App.-corpus Christi 2001) ••••••• 23

28)1arr v.Resolution Trust Corp.,837 s.W.2d 627 at 630-31(Tex.l992) ••••••••••••• 23

-VII-

- IV.

d)STATEMENT OF THE CASE:The petition must contain a stataaent ef the cue that she uld seldGID exceed one page and sboulcl not discuss the facts.Tbe statement must con tain the Follewing :A cencise description of the nature of the· case( e.g. ,whether it is a suit for damages,en a note, or in trespass te try title:) !)Plaintiff 'lB»>AS'S suit is fer damages under Inmate's Claim fer test er Damage

Preperty,'tex.Gov't CODE.• ff24.007;50l.007:Tex.Censt.Art.l,fffff3:3a:8;13;17;19;Unit ed states eonst.l_st:4th;5th;6th:7th:8th;l4th Amend(sh42 u.s.C.fl983;42 u.s.c.ADAf .. .

12131~34(e.g,.,fer injunctive relief) 2)The name of the judge wbe signed the ercier er judgment appealed fraa:if-.rable

IRO(J(SH.HAGLBR,The 258'BI JUDICIAL DISTRICT SMALL CLAIMS CGURT OP TEXAS 3)The aesignatien ef the trial court and the county inwhicb it is la<:ateci:JONBS Cewlty,~SE-P.O.IOX 42g.;..ANSC6,TBXAS 79501

4)The dispositien of the cue by the trial court,aismissing Vithprejudlce,u ~ ' . I l '•

~TI~ tiTIGANT,Pr.-;.filing 1 pursuant te Tex.civ.Prac.5 Rem.CODE.Olapter 11.101 '-. ./

S)'l'he parti~ in the court •f A;pMls the Eievmth District •f · Texas,sftt.B:Ati:.BN

GI.iNN TH<:IIAS v.TBxAs DUARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICB-E>Pi'ICER MARCUS A.ADAMS.ET.AL

6)'lhe . .

district of the coUrt of Appeals is the Eleventh District . '

ef. Texas~P.().. IOX 2 /

71-EASTLAND,TEXAS 76448 7)Tbe names .•f. the justices wbe participated in the decision in the c.urt ef appea ' . . . )-I • •

ls;t~e a:uthor ef the o,inieh for the ·c-urt,~ 'the' auther ef any separate opinion, M&iDerandum opinion by wright,·c.J. (Piinel consists •f :llright,c.J., Willsen,J., and lai ley,J.) 8)'l'he citatien fer the Court ef Appealslepinion,if available,or a statement that the opiralen was unpublisbed,and nOntbeiess,·.Ven where a trial cOurt. disndSsal with prejUdice,This court has inspected the recerd in this cause and concludes that the ' . . ' :. . . :

re is no errer in the judgment belw.Therefere,in accerdance with tltis c:eurt•s epi nien,the judgmen~ ef thit trial court" i~ in all things affirmed. . .

9)'1'he c.Uspesiti.n ef the case by the court ef APPeals:AFiiRMED,the judgment ef the ' ;> ,. '"" .. . -

Trial ceurt order dismissing this suit.11lia court has inspected the record in this .. ; . '

case and concludes that there is nO errer in the jUdgment below.Therefere,in ac:cGr dance with this court •s epinictni the judgment of the trial COUrt is in all things a ffirmed.Ne affirm the OCteber 11,2012 judgment.

. 8 (PPR]

d) STATEMENT OF CASE:(e.g.,This is a suit for damages) 9n August 31,2012_,'Plaintiff 'lHClQS suit was filed in the 259'1'8 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CXXJRT '?"JONES county,Texas,against seventeea(l7) named TDCJ'S officer•s,official's

et.al.,defendant •s~

11

Plaintiff also filed an declaration of inability to pay the . ' 2 costs,and requested to proceed Informa pauperis 1 I Plaintiff stated a Claim under the United States constitutions,First,Fourth,FIF'l'H slX'l'H,sBVENTH,EIGH'lti,FOUR'l'UN'1'H AMENI»~ENTS,42 u.s.c.§l983,ana under the 'l'BXAS Const

ituticms .ARTICLES l,ffiifi3J3a;8;13:17:19fTex.Gov't CODE.if24.007:50l.007,Inmate's

Claim For test or Damage Property,by these named TDCJ'S-officer•s,and official's, Conspiring and Retaliating, filing False disciplinary cases em me, 0 Maliciously Prese

uting me without 11 Pnable Cause"for these disciplinary proc:eedings,against me becau sa of my serious medical condition,Restrictions of "NO LIP'.l'ING)50 L.s at that time,

its now been updated te •NO LIFTING,lO LIS,NO LIFTING AT ALL", 11 NO aENDING AT WAIST,

"NO QEPETITIVE USE OF HANDS,and because of an inlarge "Bernia", in my right grein, I have "MCK Pr«>lems,·I wears an 11 MCK aRACEu_, inwhich has cause me te have majer Surgery te my right groin fer these twe "Hernia•, interfering with my serieus medici

al cenditien for these two("HERNIA,MCK PRoaLES•] ,denied,delayed my serieus medical

care, these acticms constitutes an •siGII'l'H Amendment violatien ef "DELDERATE INDIFF ··

ERENCE• ,under the Unitecl States Cctnstitution,under the "TEXAS Censtitutien Art.l,

ffff§f3:3a:8:13:17:19:ccfM.toN LAW OF MALICIOOS Proaecution,by i119roperly making the

Plaintiff a subject of a legal preeess te his Gletriment,oue ceurse,aricil Due precess,, . . 3 Equal pretecti4Nl of the law uncier 42 u.s~C.§l983, I te redress the cleprivations "

under the •coLOR OF t.AW,FEDERAL ani STATES LAW OF RIGHTS secured by the Censtitutien

l)See:Plaintlff's original petiti•n filed August 3l,2012,[CR-~l64]

2)See:Plaintiff's AFFIDA'lT ' .

oP INDIGENCY AND uNswoRN OaCLARAfiON[CR~l7l-l73]

:! : •. ' .

. • .. I . ! . • •

3)See;Plaintiff's eriginal petitien[ca.:.3-l9]

9(PFR)

IV.

d)Of the United States and th~ States of TEXAS.The trial Court Declarea Plaintiff as

A VBXATIOOS LITIGANT" ,specifiea in its ORDER, Plaintiff did not obtain permission from A local Adndnistrative judge with (10)Ten days of the filing Notice that Plaintiff is

A vexaticaus Litigant,Therefore,it is oiU>ERED this case is DISMISSED WI'l'B PR&JUDICE,

Plaintiff shall take llGthing by this suit,This is a Final ORDER that disposes of this

4

entire case,A11 relief not specifically granted is denied. 1 ·

v.

(e) STATEMENT OF JtJlUSDICTION: The SUPREME COURT 01' TEXAS,must have JURISDICTION over the parties,because this is an . . .

Appeal from the decisien from the 259TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COORT OF JONES County,TBXAS,

This case is of such i111p0rtance te the jurisprudence Qf the STATE OF TEXAS,that a dire

ct "APPEAL" should be allwed.See:RULES OF APPELLATE~ RULES OF SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS,Rules 38.1;47.1;52.9:53.2;53.7(f):55.5:56.l(a):1-6:57.3;57.4;et.seq.

. . : : .

Plaintiff seeks injuative relief,are authorized IDy sectien 65.001,,et.seq.ef Tex.civ.

Prac., Rem.CODE. ,and Declaratory relief,pursuant to section 37 .ool,ET.seq.of TEX.CIV.

PRAC., RDI.OODE.;and nerminal cC~~Dpensatory,punitive damages.

'. ,.. . ' . . .

Plaintiff seeks Discevery,should be conducted under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure(Supp

1980),Rule 166(a),(C),level two(2),three(3)of the Tu.Civ~Prac., Rem.coos:Texas Rules ef

Civil Prec.Rules 190.3(b):l90.4(bhRule 306a Hearings.

VI.

(f)ISSUIS PUSENTEO:The brief must state c:oRcisely ail issuea or (Nints preaentea fer

Review.The statement of an issue or r-int will be treated as covering every subsidiary question that f~irly included.If the matter c:oqtlained of eriginated in the trial court.,

it should have been preserved for appellate review in the trial court and assigned as

error in the Court of appeals.

. . . . .

4.)See:Plaintiff ORDER[CR-211-212)

lO[PFR)

VI.

(f) ISSUES PRESEN'l'ED OR POINTS FOR REVIEW:

PUrsuant to Tex.R.APP;Rt:JLE 47.1 ;TEX.R.APP.RULES

52.9;56.1

QUESTIONS PRESENTED aEFORE THESE JUSTICES OF Tf.fiS SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS:?

l )WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS ERROREDa IN ITS OPINION,,

FAIL TO SATISFY lmJUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND NECESSARY TO THE

FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL?

2)WHETHER THIS STATUTE TEX.CIV .PRAC., REM.CODE.CHAPTER ll.,,,fll.lOl(a),, (2) ,fll.l03(a),~ (e)

DECLARING THC.MAS AS AN VEXATIOOS LITIGANT IS UNCOOSTI'l'UTICNAL AS APPLIED.1 VIOLATES THCIIAS . . .

RIGHTS TO ACCESS TO THE ~TS UNDER 'THE OPEN COURTS PROVISION,DUB COURSB,DUE PROCESS,

QJAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION,ARTICLES l,fififi3;3a;8;13;17;l9f

'!'Ex.Gov't CODE.ff24.007;50l.007 ,UNBIR UNITED STATES Conatitutions,lst;4th;5th:6th;7th;8t h;l4th Amend[s]?

3)COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAs Brrored_,by uphGlding an ~VOID ORDERa,in

Declaring the petitioner to &e a vexatious litigan~ and entered a prefiling ORDER in a

SMALL CLAIMS COURT,inwhicb it prohtbit petitioner from filing any future litigatioras,

withG>ut the permission of th~ lQCal administrative judge,cannot !Place the petitioner und

er an different legislature statUte, now prohibited appeals from such an diSIIissal•? 4)COURT OF APPEALS ELEVBNm DIS1RICT OF TEXAS,Errored,t&y holding petitioner dees not cite to and the oourt cannot find any pages in the .appellate recQrds inwhicb the Petitioner raised his challenge to the censtitutiGnality of chapter ll in the trial C.urt. ,Therefore, petitioner has not preserved this issue f(j)r appellate review. See:TEX.R.APP.P.33.l:See:Drum v.Calhoun,299 S.W.3d 360,369~70(Tex.App.-Oallas 2009) pet.aeniaci)(h(l)lciing defendant waived challenge 'to c<:mstitUtionallty of vexatiQUS liti-

gant statutes),,this court agreeclf ·with the Austin COURT OF APPEALS,uph~tld the constitut-

ionality of chapter ll uncler the epen courts provisien,the equal protection clause,and

the rights to due prec:ess.see:Leonard v.Abllott,l7l s.w.3d 451,456-58(Tex.App.-Aus~in,

2005,pet.deniecl).

ll(PFR]

VI.

,,

(f) ISSUES PRESENTED OR POINTS FOR REVIEW:

5)COORT OF APPEALS ELEVEN'l'H DISTRICT OF TEXAS Errored,by concluaing that the petiticmer did not pursue mandamus relief in the ~T OF APPBALS,regarding his contentien the local Administrative judge refuse te rule on his mtion,petitioner did not cemplain IDelov that

the lecal administrative judge refuse to rule,, ner did he subsequently request a ruling. The court cann•t concluae on the review of the records that the lecal administrative

Judge refuse to rule en the petitiener•s motion seeking the permission to file the suit,

Moreover,even if the local adniinistrative jucige had denied petitioner's request fer permission~petitioner could not seek review of the judge's denial ay direct appeal.

. ' '

See:Fermer CIV.PRAC., REM~CODE.fll.l02(C),(20ll)(current versioo at CIV.PUC., RBM.CODE.

fll.l02(f)(West Supp.2014)( 11 A decision of a local administrative judge denying a litigant

permission to file a litigation ••• is not grounds for an appeal,except that the litigant

may apply for Writ of mandamus with the court of appeals~)

6)COURT OF APP&Ar.S ELEYmr8 DISTRICT OF TEXAS Errored,.by cencluding that the trial

COurt did not abuse its discretion when it ciismissed the petitioner's suit.

. . . . . -

Petitioner also claim that the trial court erred when it dismissed his claims withprejua-

ice,that petitiGner did not raise this issue in the trial court and thus waived this erro r for Appellate reviev.see:TEX.R.APP .• P. 33.l;Leonard,l7l s.w.3d at 46l(holding defendant

waived arg\lllent that his suit shoiud not have been dismissed with prejudice when he fail • • • • v

to timely file a postjudgment motion to correct judgment).?

l2(PFR]

VII.

(g)STATEMEN'l'S OF FACTS:The brief must state concisely,and without argument the.

Facts pertinent to the issues of points presented.In a Civil case,the Court will -- · accept as true the facts stated unless another party contradicts them.

The statement IIIUSt tDe sUpported by rec:erds references. TB<»1AS challenges TEX.CIV .PRAC., REM.CODE.Chapter 11 statue on se-Veral constitut

ional grounds,and claims that this statute denies him equal protection,due course

Due prf)Cess of the laws under the Texas constitutiGns Articles l,flffif3;3a:S:l3:

17:19;United States Constitutions lst:4th:5th;6th;7th:Sth:l4th Amenaments,he also

Claims that the statute violates the Articles l,section 3., •.PrQbibition against pu

lDlic emoluments,the section 19,due course,due process guarantee,and the section

13 •oPEN COURTS", Prevision. Articles },section 13 provides in part:

ALL ceurts shall be open, and every person for an

injury dGme him,in his lancil,goeds,person er repu

tation,shall have remedy ay due course of law.

TEX.COOST.Art.l,§l3:THOMAS argues that this guarantee of a remedy by ciue course of

law makes any legislative attE~~D~Pt to Dar Dis CaUSe of action prior to its discever

- y,is unconstitutional..The numerous df!Cision of the Supreme Court of Texas,construi

ng Article !,section 13 establish that the constitutional guarantee ef a remedy 1ty ' ., ,.· .··

ciue course of law is substanial rights,indepenaent of other constitutional provisi • ~ •• > •

1 ct>ns. I

!)Petitioner's reliance on SaX v.Vct>tteler,648 S.N.2d 661 at 664(Tex.l983);TEX.CIV. PRAC., · REM.CODE.Chapter il.,§ll.lQl(a), (2).,§11.102,fll.l03(a), (lt) :Tex.GOv't CODE. fi24.oo7:sOl.007:Tex.censt.Art.l,fUiif3;3a;8;13;17;19;USCA Const.lst;4th;5th;6th: 7th:8th;l4th Amencit{s];(CR-3-l64;174-179;180-18l;l82;18~195;196;197;211~212l . ~ . '

l3[PFR)

VI~. . . .. ! : ~ •• .. ..

(g)The two due course ef law provisions in the Tex.const.,are no~ cotet'IJU,nous,sepa

rate due process and open courts guarantees were includecJ in the seventh and Eleve nth declarations of rights in the first Constitution of Texas as a sovereign rep\JD

2

lic,these separate rights have aeen preserved in every c:enstitutiGn since. I

(h)Surnmary of the argument.Tbe brief must CQntain a succ:inct,clear,and accurate

statement of the argument made in the IMdy of the brief.This sunmary must not mere ly repeat the issue or points presentee) for review. THC»!AS "'ill show this SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,the test for an abuse of discretion is

rwt whether,inthe opinion of the reviewing cwrt,the facts present an appropriate case for the trial court's actien,eut whether the court acted without reference to

any guiding rules and principles.The trial court •s ruling should be reversed only if

it was arbitrary or unreasonable.The mere fact that a trial judge may decide a matte r within his discretionary authority in a different manner than an appellate judge i na similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an aGUSe of discretion has QCCUrr ed.Petitioner,pr:oc:eeding pro-se!challenged orders of the 259th judicial District cou rt of Jones County,Texas,which required him to obtain permission under Tex.Civ.trac.

' RDJ.CODE.ANN.fll.lOl(a)from the local administrative judge eefore filing his suit.

'"

Dismissed with prejudice his claims for Lost or damage property.,denial of access to

the courts against appelleee,the Texas Department of criminal Justice and priSf/Xl off

icials(TDCJ),where the proper proceciures for invoking Tex.Civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.Ch.ll,

were not followed,a trial court abuse its discretion in issuing an order requiring an

Inmate to obtain permission under 'l'ex.Civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.ANN.fl1.10l(a)from the local administrative .judge befCi)re filing his suit• ,dismissing his claims against the

Texas D~t of Criminal Justice and prison officials for failing te ebtain the

permission of the local administrative judge.

2).etitionet•s're11ance em N~ v.KRUSEN,678 s.w.2d 918 at 912('l'ex.l984);'l'EX.~'l'. (1836) ;See:alse 1 G.lraden.The Censtit~ti.on of the S'l'A'l'E OF TEXAS,AN ANNO'l'ATBD and C<illlpat'tive Analysis 47(1977): Tex .const.Art.l, ffifii3: 8; 13; 17:19 JUSCA Const .1st ;4th; 5t h;6th;7th;8th;l4th Amend[s];[CR-3"'!'164:174-179:180-181;182;183-195;196;197;211-212]

.·14[PFR]

VIII.

(i)Argument.The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the conten

tions made.,with appropriate citations to authorities to the record.

1 )WHETHER THE COURT· OF APPEALS ELEVEN'l'H DISTRICT OF TEXAS ERRORED" IN ITS OPINl~

.FAIL TO SATISFY RBJUIREMEN'l'S TO ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE RAISED AND NECESSARY TO THE

.FINAL DISPOSITION oF THE APPEAL?

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY:

Court of Appeals,, prior to ordering dismissal, should consider points calling for 3 . '

redition of judgment, I Appeal from trial court's rulings that chapter 11 of the

Tex.Civ.Prac., aem.CODE.,rules provisions were valid,but that request for declar . '

atory judgment was not yet ripe,Court of Appeals,upon reversal of ripeness issue was required to render judgment that challenged rules were either valid or inval id,parties requesting Caurt of Appeals suggested that evidence was n0t fully dev

eloped on issue of validity,and trial court would have no reason to reconsider its decision that rules were valid.4/ . . '

3)Petitioner•s reliance on WEST v.ROBINS0N,l80 s.w.3d 575 at 576-77(Tex.2005)(requ

iring court of appeals to adress • every issue raised and necessary t(l) final dispos

ition of the appeal);Tex.R.APP.P.47.l;Tex.Const.Art.l,§i§Sfi3:3a;8;13;17;19;USCA

Const.lst~4th;5th;6th;7th:8th:l4th Amend(s];(CR-3.,;.219]

4)Petitioner's reliance on LONE STAR GAS co.v.RAILROAD . .

CCM'N,767

.

s.w •.2d 709 at 710 ~

~7ll(Tex.l989) ;WEST v.RoaiN80N,l80 s.w.3d 575 at 576-77(Tex.2005)(requiring court

of appeals to address' every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of

the appeal") ;Tex.R.APP.P.47 .l;'l'ex.Const.Art.l,fffiii3:3a;8;13:17:19;USCA Const.lst

4th;5th;6th;7th;8th;l4th Amend(s]:[CR..;.3-219]

15[P.FR]

(i) VIII.

2)WBBTHER THIS STATUTE TEX.CIV .PRAC., REM.COOE.CHAP'l'ER 11., §ll.lOl(a)' (2), §11.103

(a), (b),DECLARING TftCioiAS AS AN VEXATIOUS LITIGANT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED1 VIOLATES 'l'HC»JAS'S RIGHTS TO ACCESS '1'0 THE COURTS UNDER OPEN COURTS PROVISION,DUE CCXJRSE 1 DUE PROCESS.,QJAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IN '1'BE TEXAS CX*STI'l:UfiONS,ARTICLE

l,ff§iif3:3a;8;13;17;19;TEX.GOV'T CODE.ff24.007;50l.007,UNDER UNITED STATES ~

ITUTIONS,lst:4th;Sth:6th;7th;8thJ14th Amend[s]?

ARGUMENT AND A~I'l'Y:

Petition~ THOMAS argues,challenged the juagment of the 259TH District Court of

Jones County,Texas,dismissing his suit for damages against appellees,seventeen(l7 Prison employees; the finding that the petitioner a vexatious litigant was not pos ssiale under Tex.Civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.ANN.§ll.054,because of the lawsuits listed, Four of the Five fed~al proceedings indicated that they were related at least in Part to petitions for habeas corpus proceedings filed Q'y the petitiener,petitioner Argues on appeal that a habeas corpus proceeding ees not qualify as a 11 litigation

51 .

Under the vexatious '

litigant statute. In its September 12,2012,the .

att0mey gene

ral filed a notice to inform the trial court that the trial court had previously

found the petition~ to be a vexatious litigant in anoth~ case N0.022100,the stat ed that the trial court had ordered the petitioner to obtain permission frem the

local administrative judge before the petitioner could filed any additionalk pro-se

litigation in state court and that the petitioner had failed to do so_prior to fili

ng his petition in this case.As such,the attorney general requested that the court,

Immediately stay the litigation and requested that the court dismiss the suit unless within (lO)Ten days of the notice,petitioner obtained an order frem the local Admini strative judge granting him permission to file suit.

S)Petitioner•s reliance on Walp v.Williams,330 s.w~3d 404 at 407(Tex.App.-Fort Worth

2010,no pet)(that habeas proceedings are criminal,not civil in nature for purpose of determining the number of prior civil litigations commenced by a plaintiff with reap act to the vexatious litigant staaute.)(a trial court must first conduct an evidenti ary hearing before declaring· a party a vexatious li,igant);Tex.civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.f ll.05l;ll.054;fll.ool(2) ;§ll.lOl(a), (2) ;fll.l03(a), (b); §ll.053(a) ;Tex.Const.Art.l, U iifi3:3a;S;l3;17;19;USCA Const.lst:4th:Sth:6th:7th;l4th Amend(s]:[CR•3-219]

l6(PFR]

' .

(i) VIII.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY:

on September 14,2012, the trial CC1)urt signed an order in which it found that petition er had not Qbtained permission to file suit from a local administrative judge within Ten(lO)days from the date the attorney general filed its notice that petitioner was A vexatious litigant.The court ordered petitioner's case be dismissed with prejudice

On that same day,the court also signed an order staying the proceedings. on September 30,2012,the court signed an order withdrawing the orders that the court had signed on September 14,and the court signed another order staying all proceeding on October 11,2012_,the court again found that the petitioner had nC1)t obtained permis sion from a local administrative judge,and it dismissed the petitioner's case with p rejudice.Petitioner,argues,however that the trial court's orders in this matter are Problematic,(l)Pirst the trial court's September l2,2012,in the other case the :MARCH 31,2010,orders was net preceded by a motion filed by the (TDCJ)requesting that the trial court determdne whether THOMAS was a vexatious litigant and whether security f or ceurt costs was necessary, instead, the trial ceurt implicitly concluded that the Petitioner was a vexatious litigant sua sponte.Several Texas courts have held that a trial court may not conclude that a plaintiff is a vexatious litigant when the defeo dant fail to timely a motion under section 11.051 of the civil practice and remedies Code. 6t

6)Petitiooer's reliance on SCOTT v.Tex.Dep't of Crim.Justice-Institutional Div.2008, Tex.App.LEXIS 894l(Tex.App.-corpus Christi Nov.20,2008) (holding where the proper pro cedures for inveking Tex.Civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.ch.ll,were not foilowed);Spiller v.Spil ler,21 s.w.3d 451 at 454(Tex.App.~San Antonio 2000,no pet)(holding that a motion fil ed outside the ninety-days period- was untimely):In reMarriage of Grossnickle,ll5 s. N.3d 238 at 252(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003,no.pet)("(T]he vexatious litigant statute ap plies only when filed within ninety-days after the date on which a defendant files h is or her original answer•):oishner v.Huitt~zollars,Inc.,l62 S.N.3d 370 at 377(Tex. App.-Dallas 2005,no.pet) (Holding that the trial court abused its discrectio in decla ring appellant a vexatious litigant when the mGtion was filed outside the ninety-day time period):(the courts are not aware of,nor has the TDCJ,cited,any authority allow ing the trial court to circumvent the statutory prerequisite of section 11.051 by concluding that a litigant is vexatious sua sponte);Tax.Civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.fll.051: ill.054:ill.053(a):ill.l0l;fll.l03(a),(b);Tex.Const.Art.l,fiiifi3;3a;8;13;17~19; [CR-3-219] ;(CR-211-212] l7[PFR]

(i) VIII.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY:

Second,the records does not establish that the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether THOMAS was truly a vexatious litigant.The September 12,2012 ORDER served to put petitioner on notice that the trial court had conclUded that He was a vexatious litigant and that he was not required to provide security for the benefit of the TDCJ,but was ordered to file an prefiling order,obtain permis

7

ssion from the local administrative judge in order to proceed with his -suit. /,

However,no hearing was conducted pursuant to 'l'ex.civ.Prac., Rem.CODE•fll.053(a). Third,the trial court,in concluding that T~ was a vexatious litigant,relied heavily on the 259'1'8 District Court •s findings that petitioner was a vexatie>us litigant in cause number 022100,also,TDCJ ,fail to timely file a motion to determ ine whether THOMAS was truly a vexatious litigant,,howev~,the TDCJ has not demon strata that the underlying facts in cause number 022100 are substantially similar or arose out of the same occurrence or transaction as the present matter,in fact,

as he noted in his handwrtten list of previously-filed lawsuit,THOMAS alleged that in cause number 022100,various TDCJ officer,officials had falsely charged him with

a disciplinary case and he suffered emotional and physical injury due to the heigh

tened security restrictions he faced as a result of the punishment imposed in the

disciplinary proceedings,Maliciously prosecuted him without PProbable causeP, Therefore,because the present case and did not involved an inmate's lost or damage

Property claim,cause number 022100 do not involve substantially similar facts or oc Currence.

?)Petitioner's reliance onNabelek v~Johnson,N0.04-03-00269-CV,2005,Tex.App.LBXIS 25

ll,at *9-lO(k.lfp.-san Armlio Jp:.6,a:a;,pet delifd)(man.e~p)(Yacsti.rrJ the trial o:u:ts vecat:ious ax1a:. inanimate suit an3 n:itirg, that sectim U.(ljJ(a)i:equires .

that a he1rirg be aniJ:tej to datetmine if a .

litigallt is a veethus litigai'E")~~,m ·l'lel:'airg WIB <XIlil:t.e3 p&'SU1r1t to);TeK.Civ.Pr.a:.c Rsn.<IIE.f ll.ai'3(a) :fll.ai4(C), (2) i(A), (I), (3hs:DlT v.k.I:>Ep't of cr.im.Just:i.ce-ImtitLtiaal. Di.v.am TeK~.r.oo: s fB41.(TeK~ Ori.st:.i 1'0/.al,.ns) ;Tac.<br't <DE.fi24.007:3ll..007:TeK.amt.Art.l,HHif3:3a;8:13 l7;19;u:o\ etn:st.lst;4th;5th:6th:7th;8th;l4th Jmm[s]: (CR-l74-179;18J...l9.5;l.97;2ll-212]

l8[M]

(i) vm • .AR:DENl' AN) NJlHlU'lY:

FirBll.y,'JID4AS,atgUSS t:hat; the cxu:t SDJ1d fird that bEalse mD,fail to file a ncticn b::'J.g;JEI:'in:J arW.ys is \l'liet' dlap;c 11 of the civil p:a::tice am N~Edi.ES aXle, this aut Cb not have a btiis fer ii'Blyzi.rr; 'JID4AS'S p:ariously-film oases in the ~ per:icx:t imnd.ately p:a:e:Jirg the ID:i.al,in aax:r:tarm with SED:i.al, this au:t tiaJld cm:::l.u:3e tb£ the trial cxu:t Et'r83 in its data:minat:iat of WlS:her: 'lJI)JAS

was a veratious litigant,as cxnt:ain in its~ 12,201.2 cr:der:,_. tail.i.rr:J to amply with.a/ ~as rD:m abaw,sa:ialu.ao mquir:es that the trial aut czder a pliWtiff to 1il::niSl SEDr

ity fer: the benefit of the IIDI1inj dafsdmt after:;(l)A hea1:'irg a1 the defEili:n:'s ncticn;W(2)t:he trial

cxu:t deteanines thlt the plairEiff is a veratiOU:llitigant,See:i.d.fll.<.:65.In the~ case,'ltXJJ,nevet' file:J a DDt:ial to deteanine YlethEI:' ~was a veraticus litigant ard,as '1'elra9 au:t's have p:ariasly

an:l.u::&Lthe trial aut did IU f.ol1aw the ~ ~ fa:' i.rM::.kin:J ~Ell:' ll,of the civil r;rad:i oe ard rana:lies cxde,wet'9 rtt fDJ.l.ai,'Dlenfa:'e this is a violatia\ of the Tex.o:nst.Art.l,fit3;l:l;l3;17;19 of {"'lE <XXRB,IXE !KXE$ Cl 'lHE ~],the trial cxu:t chse its dlsxetim in ~ its ~8lbar: 1.2,

2012,cmat",in tum difBissiFQ 'IIIM\S'S claims aga:i.nst the 'JIXD,its offiCEI:' 1S Dr fail.in;J to cttain per;mi.ss

ia1 fmn the .1.cx:al Dlinist:rative j\li:Je betXxe petiti<nl!C' fil.Ed Blllf ad:ti.ticml ~ litigtticn in the

'l'eKJg;>.-<l:l:ps 01risti lbr.20,axB);Nabelek v.Jch'JsC:n,axl) Tex.JH>.UOOS 259l('l'EK.AH>.-&n Ari:Cnio ~.6,

am,pet dalim)(nm.cp)(Vacating the trial au:ts vscatiaus lit.igari: cxder:: inanimate's suit em l1:llt:in;J that sed:ialll.<53(a)rfqlires a heaJ:il'g be anlr:tirl to detemri.ne if a litigant is a wratio.s lit:igin11 ) (hM!ver:,l'l) ~ was ~s:ln) ;AIUN <U1'ti 'liDPS v.'IEXAS 1'J:PARDell' CF ClUMlNa\L JtBriCE-lN9l.'lit1J.'l' '.ltial a:u=t N>.022l.OO-<ltlR1' CF ~ DJSJRIC1' CF 'l!XAS,N>.ll-l2-0012l-<.V('l'eKJ{;:p.-£\Sli.IN),Jme

l2,all4)(m heu:irg anll:tm) :'l'EK.ci.v.Pt&c~ REm.am. fll.C5l;fll.053(a) :fll.a;4(1), (2), (3);fll.OOS(a):

. ' ·. :

iJI.)t¢;fll.ai6;fll.lOl(a),(l),(2);fll.l02;fll.l03(a),(b),(C);fll.l04(a),(9);'l'eK.o:mt.Art.l,fffiff3;l:l;8;

13;17;19:tR'A o:nst.Jst;4th;5th;6th;7th;8th:14th IIDEirD{s];42 U.S.C.f1933;42 U.S.C.AIL§l.2W-34 ;(~219]

• . .,\ iJ

(i) vm. 3)al.Rr CR AliiDLS ELEViNIH DISlRICr CF 'l1iXAS l!lil:Riil),a'i lJIII:IDitG AN "VOID ClUR" I IN Ji.BIARIN:; 'ltE JIHCli:JO N:R it> 1B A VEm'IQ5 LTliGMir IW ENJBa> A !l&"ll...O ClUR IN ASWL a.AD5 CIJ.Rl',JN Nmll rr !lOni1T ~ Pto1 FJI.IN3H !l1J.tR: Ll.'l'mNS,WI'IJO·Jl' 'lHE ~ CE 'lfE ItlX. ~ JtiX.E,..W C»K7l' HM:E B ~ t:NJR IN WMi&CENI' UGI:SA'll.H.: SIJtlt1I&taf .liRlD1'lB) APPIW.S !10! Sllf AN ~?

Petitiata:" ~,ar;guas that the trial,~Jlate o:u:t aD.se its dis::tet:ial,'lhe cg:Je1late au:t reviatS

i.asuas cn:et'llin;J ~ Eleven of the Taras Civil Pra.tice an:3 Rsld.es CDE \lOr en ab.ae af dis:xetion atarl:BtO.beca:se a au:t nay dEclare a pa:s:ra a veDCatiQ.S litigant cnly after: 11Bkin:J c:a:tain st:ab.t:czily ~ evi.dn:iaty firr:tin:Js,the Q)ellate au:t cxnside:s the legal am factml a.JfficiEn:.Y of the evid aDa ~ atJj eKp:'EIEIS a:' iaplicit firdin;js of the trial au:t.lut \l'IB:' the . . of di.s::rel:ial i

stardm3 the cwenate o:u:t Ellp)].ya,the 1.ega1. an:) facbal snfficiar:y af the evidu:e are B:lt irr3cperDJJt

gt'Qids of EIXtC',tu:. relevarE factxrs ftx ~ ~er: the trial au:t ct:u9ED its disx'eticn,if en

atuse of dis:xetion is Eh::wuthe cwelJate au:t the1 ci:midem ~the El:'r.U' is tmmless. /

9

An ~e aut reviEWS the djsnjsg] of animate's lawsuit in fcma ~ arD a trial aut is detEE' miiBt:icn that the imate is a varatic:us litigctt t.n3er en atuJe of di.s:reticn .starr:Bta,.Abusa of disa::eticn

is deta:mined by Elrillli.nirg 'itletl'lEE' the trial aut acted wit:tD:It refs:ex:e to cny guj.din!J niLes am tzir'dp

les.lO/

state,l55 s.w.~ 498 at !D2(TeK.IQ>.-&n Artmio a:x>4hts:n:~ai v..Jt.txJtt,l7l s.w.3d 451 at 4f9('1'6K.~g>~~

AlJ!Jt:inlani,pet.&niEd):Zieba v.Mirtin,928 s.w~ 782 at 7B6(TeK.AR;>.-IbSt:al[l4th Di.st]~,r» writ):

~ v.~q»,898 s.w.a3 9"51 at 9rl>-4i(TeK.~g>..,11.aarillo l9951writ daUEd)(if an atuJe of di.s::rel:ial is Slcwn,the aut then cmsi.del:' 'ibet:her: the emr \aS har:ml.ess);'l'eK.R.APP.P.44.l(a).;Tex.Civ.Pr:cr:., REm.QlE. §11.05l;ill.<53(a) :§ll.re4(1) 1 (2), .

(3) ;§ll.aiS(a) :ill.a56;§11.10l.(a)l(l) ,(2);§11.102;§11.103(a)~ (b), (C) :ill.

~ . .

l04(a) 1 (b) ;TeK.<J:n3t.Art.lliiifH3;3a;8;13;17;i.9;un a:nst.lst;4th:5thJ6th; 7th:8t:h;l4th lmenl[s]: [ CR-211-

212]

lO)letiti<l'lE!t"'s re1.ian:e en~ v.lqalarine cp:rat:cxs,Irx::.l.701 s.w.aJ 238 at 2Al-42(Tetc.l$5):~ v.

I<t1kjlt,52 s.w.3d 292 at 234-eS(Tetc.AQ?.-Qxp,s 01risti a;m,pet.dEI'li.Ed);Tetc.R.APP.P.44.l(a);Tetc.Ci.v.Prac.a REM.aiE.fll.05l;fll.<53(a) ;§11.054(1) 1 (2), (3) ;§ll.CllS(a) ;fll.a56;§11.10l.(a), (1) 1. (2);ill.l<Il:ill.l03(a), (b) (C) ;fll.l04;TeK.a:nst.Art.ll ifi§ff3;3a;8;13;17;l9;ts:A Q:nst;.lst;4th;5th:6th; 7th;8tb;l4th AIB'rl(d]; [CR-174-

179;la>-181.;182;183-195;196;197;198-210;211-2l2)

(i) VIII.

4 )COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, ERRORED, IIY BaLDING PETITIONER OOES

NOT CITE TO AND THE COURT CANNOT FIND ANY PAGES IN THE APPELLATE RECORDS INWHICH

TH11 PETITIONER RAISED HIS CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CHAPTER 11, IN THE TRIAL COURT., THEREFORE, PETITIONER HAS NOT PRESERVED THIS ISSUE FOR APPELLATE REviEW ?

Petitioner 'l'HQ1AS,argues that the appellate court is wrong,has not read these records properly1 has abuse its discretion,because A waiver of constitutional rights must be

11

voluntary,knowing,and intelligent,with full awareness of the legal consequences. ; Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary,but also must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relvant circumstances and like

12

ly comsequences. I The word "adequate",has no comprehensive definition with regard

to mandamus and its requirement of no adequate remedy by appeal;the word is simply a proxy for the careful balance of jurisprudential considerations that determine when

Appellate courts will use original mandamus proceedings to review the actions of the 13/

lower courts.

!!)Petitioner's reliance on IN RE PRUDENTIAL INS.,CO.OF AMERICA,l48 S,W.3d 124 at

135-36,n24,~n25(Tex.2004);Tex.R.APP.P.33.l;Tex.Civ.Prac., Rem.CODE.§ll,judgment was

REVERSEO,as a vexatious litigant in cause NO•Appellate NO.ll-12-00121-cv;Tdal court N0.022100:Tex.Const.Art.l,§§§§f3;3a;8;13;17;19;USCA Const.lst;4th;5th;6th;7th;8th;l4t h Amend[s);[CR-18~195iiin his Appellate brief at pages 14-16]

(" - .

12)Petitioner•s reliance oniN RE PRUDENTIAL INS.,CO.OF AMERICA,l48 s.w.3d 124 at 135-36,n24,,25(Tex.2004);arown v.McLenna Cotmty Children's Protective Sers.,62;7 S.W.,2d 390.393(Tex.l982);arady v.United States,397 u.s.742,748,9(:) s.c.t.l463,25 L.E.d.2d 747

(1970)fTex.R.APP.P.33.l;Tex.Civ.Prac.i Rem.CODE.§ll, judgment was REYERSEO,asa vexatious

litigant in cause No.Appellate NO.ll-12-Q0121-cv;Trial court N0.022100:Tex.Const.Art.l,ffi Uf3;3a;8;13;17:19;USCA Const.lst;4th:5th;6th;7th;8th:l4th Amend[s];[CR-18~195)

13)Petitioner's reliance on IN RE PRUDENTIAL INS.CO.Of AMERCIA,148 S.W.Jd 124 at 135-36 (Tex.2004);DALLAS MORNING NEWS v.FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS,842 S.W.2d 655 at 658(Tex.l992); Walker v.Paciker,827 s.w.2d 833 at 840(Tex.l992):Tex.R.APP.P.52.7;Tex.APP.P.33.l;Tex. Civ.Prac., Rem.COOE.§ll,judgment was REVERSEO,as a vexatious litigant See:I.d 71fapgl

( i) VIII. 5)COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT 0F TEXAS ERRORED,&Y CONCLUDING THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT PURSUE MANDAMUS RELIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS,REGARDING HIS CONTENTION THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE REF USE TO RULE,NOR DID HE SU&SEQUENTLY REQUEST A RULING THE COURT CANN OT CONCLUDE ON THE REVIEW OF THE RECORDS THAT THE LOCAL ADMINISTRAT IVE JUDGE REFUSE TO RULE ON THE PETITIONER•s MOTION SEEKING THE PER MISSION TO FILE THE SUIT,MOREOVER,EVEN IF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE

JUDGE HAD DENIED PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR PERMISSION,PETITIONER COO

LD NOT SEEK REVIEW OF THE JUDGE'S DENIAL IY DIRECT APPEAL.SEE:FORMER CIV.PRAC., REM.CODE.§ll.l02(C),(20ll)(CURRENT VERSION AT CIV.PRAC., REM.CODE.§ll.l02(f)(WEST SUPP.2014)(A decision of a local administrative judge denying a litigant permission to file a litigation ••• is not grounds for an

appeal,except that the litigant may apply for writ of mandamus with the court of appeals")? Petitioner argues,that the records shows that the petitioner filed a Motion,noti ce to the court,asking for permission to the local administrative judge to conti nue to file his litigation under chapter ll.l02,anmandamus to the COURT OF APPEA LS Eleventh District of Texas,on September 20,2012,the judge refuse to make any Finding and conclusion ef facts,the COURT OF APPEALS,acknowledges it in its apin ion.The appellate reviews issues concerning Chapter Eleventh of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code under an abuse of discretion standard.aecause a court may--declare a person a vexatious litigant only after making certain statutorily prescribed evidentiary finds, the appellate court considers the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting any express or implicit findings of the trial court.aut under the abuse of ·discretion standal!d the appellate court emplo ys,the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error_,but relevant facters for determining whether the trial court abuse its discretion.If an abuse of discretion is shown,the appellate court then considers whether the error is harmless.l4;

l4).Petitioner's reliance on Tuner v.Grant,20ll Tex.App.LEXIS 9250(Tex.App.-Amari llo,Nov.22,20ll);Devoll v.state,l55 s.w.3d 498 at 502(Tex.App.-san Antonio 2004) Leonard v.Abbott,l7l s.w.3d 451 at 459(Tex.App.-Austin,2005,pet.denied);Zieba v. Martin,928 S.W.2d 782 at 786(Tex.App.-Houston(l4th Dist]l996,no.writ);Crawford v Hope,898 S.W.2d 937 at 940-4l(Tex.App.-Amarillo l995,writ denied);Tex.R.APP.P.44 .l(a);Tex.Civ.Prac., Rem.Code§ll.05l:ill.l01;§11.053(a);(CR-183-l95;2ll-212]

. 22[PFR]

(i) VIII. 6)COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS ERRORED BY CONCLUDING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT AaUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITIONER 1 S SUIT. PETITIONER ALSO CLAIM THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISMISSED HIS CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE,THAT PETITIONER DID NOT RAISE THIS ISSUE IN THE TRIAL COURT AND THUS WAI YEO THIS ERROR FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.SEE:TEX.R.APP.P.33.1;LEONARD,171 S.W.3d AT 461 (holding defendant waived argument that his suit should not have been dismissed wi th prejudice when he fail to timely a postjudgment motion to correct judgment)? Petitioner argues that the statutes were very clear,because TDCJ,its employee's did not file a motion under§l1.051,the court did not hold a hearing on this motion,they are not entitle to a dismissal with prejudice under Tex.civ.Prac., Rem OODE.§l1.051 §11.053(a),§ll.054(1),(2),(3),§11.101,§11.102,§11.103,§11.104,A clear failure by the

Trial Court to analyze or apply the law correctly is an "abuse of discretion" •15I The statute requires the court to dismiss as to a moving defendant,moving defendant means a defendant who moves for an order,under Tex.C~y.Prac., Rem.CODE.§11.051,to determining that a plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and requesting security. 161 Dismissal of a suit with prejudice constitutes an adjudicati~n on the merits and ope

rates as if the case had been fully tried and decided,therefore,orders dismissing a case with prejudice have full res judicata and collateral estoppel effect,barring the subsequent__ relitigation of the same cause Gf action or issues between the same · 17 parties. 1

15)PetitiGner•s reliance on Walker v.Packer,827 S.W.2d 833 . at 840(Tex.1992);Yarbrough .

898 S.W.2d 251 at 253(Tex.l995):Tex.Gov 1 t CODE.§§24.007:501.007;Tex.Civ.Prac., Rem. CODE.§ll.051;§11.053(a);11.054U),(2),(3),§11.101(a),(2);§11.102(a),(b);§ll.l03,§ll.

_,.

104;Tex.OOnst.Art.l,§f§§§i3;3a;8;13;17;19;USCA Const.lst;4th;5th;6th;7th;8th;14th Ame nd{s];[CR-183-195;211-212]

16)Petitioner reliance on Retzlaff v.GOAMERICA COMMONS Corp.356 s.w.3d 689 at 702, 2011 Tex.App.-LEXIS 8020(Tex App.ElPaso 201l);Tex.Gov't CODE.§§24.007;501.007;Tex.Civ Prac., Rem.OODE.§11.051(a);§11.053(a);ll.054(1),(2),(3),fl1.056;§11.101(a),(2);§11. 102(a),(b);§ll.l03;§11.104;Tex.Const.Art.l,§§§f§§3;3a;8:13;17;19;USCA const.lst;4th;5 th;6th;7th;8th;l4th Amend(s]:[CR-183-195;211-212]

17)Petitioner•s reliance on THOMAS v.KWIGHT,52 s.w.3d 292 at 295(Tex.App.-corpus Chri sti 2001) ;'l'BC&\S v.SKINNER,54 s.w.3d 845 at 846-47(Tex.App.-corpus Christi 2001) ;Barr v.Resolution •rrust Corp. ,837 S.W.2d 627 at 63Q-3l(Tex.l992) ;Tex.Gov't OODE.§§24.007; 501.007;Tex.civ.Prac., Rem.OODE.§ll.05l(a);fl1.053(a);§ll.054(1),(2),(3),§11.056;§11. 10l(a),(2);§11.102(a),(b);§ll.l03;§11.104;Tex.Const.Art.l,§§§§§§3;3a;8;13;17;19; (CR-183-:-195;211-212) ... 231PFR1·.

'.

(j) PRAYER AND CONCLUSION:

The brief must contain a short conclusion that clearly states the nature of the

relief sought: WHEREFORE,PREMISS,CONSIDERED,Plaintiff ALLEN GLENN THOMAS,TDCJ-ciDI633145,respectfully

Prays that this SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,"Grants his brief for PETITION FOR REVIEW,rever se the judgment of the ELEVENTH COURT OF AP.PEALS,THE TRIAL COURT 259TH JUDICIAL DIST.OF

JONES County,Texas,that AFFIRMED under Tex.Civ.Prac.ii Rem.CODE.Chapter ll,§ll.l0l(a),(2 aecause this judgment is "VOID",in violation of the statute,tha constitution,that the Petitioner was not ever declared a vexatious litigant.See:ALLEN GLENN THOMAS v.Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division et.al.,Style:RE Appellate case

number ll-12-Q0121-cv;Trial Court case N0.022100;SUPREME COURT RE:CASE NO.l4-Q515, *Memorandum opinion by Wright,c.J.,(Panel consists of:wright,c.J.,Willson,J.,and Bailey J.);Tex.Const.Art.l,§§§§§§3;3~8;13;17;19;USCA Const.lst:4th:5th;6th;7th;8th;l4th AMEND MENTS,Grant all relief,motions filed,the petition for temporary restraining order and A tranfer,parpetual/permanent injuction,any other futher relief as this court deems

just,and proper.

SIGNED ON THIS THE.__.;;;l.;;.6t;;.;h.;;....._ _day of._ _.;..Ja;;;;n.;:,;;;ua;;;;;;;:...ry'-----__;2011

Respectfully Submitted,

ALLEN GLENN THG1AS,Pro-Se

TDCJ-ciDI633145

French M.Robartson Unit 12071 FM 3522-

Abilene,Texas 79601-8799

Phone N0(325)548-9035

24(PFR]

(K) APPENDIX IN CIVIL CASE:

.. \

!)Necessary contents.Unless voluminous or impracticable the appendix must contain a

copy of: . . (A)The trial court •s judgment or other appealable order from rel1ef 1s sought; (I)The jury charge and verdict,if any,or the trial court's findings of facts and COnclusions of law,if any;and (C)The text of any rule,regulation,ordinance,statute constitutional provisions,or other law(excluding case law)on which the argument is based,and the text of any contrac t or other documents that is centrial to the argument; (2)0PTIONAL OONTENTS:The appendix may contain any other items pertinent to the issue or points presented for review,including copies or excerpts of relevant court opinion laws documents on which the suit was based,pleading,excerpts from the reporter's records,and similar material.Items should not be included in the appendix to attempt to avoid the page limits for the brief.

(A)Copy of Docket sheet from trial court,CAPTION from the 259th District Court of Jones County,Texaa; (a)COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS OPINION,dated OCTOBER 9,2014

(C) Copy of camendar of 2009,2010,for ninety-days period to file motion,hearing (D)Copy of COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS OPINION,in cause NO.ll-12-

00121-cv ,the supreme already have copy attached to my notice of appeal,mandate from that court.

(E)Copyies of filing of mandamus petitions in trial court N0.022853,supreme court

No.ll-0033;NO.ll-0335 (F)Copy of Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.CODE.Chapter ll,statute

25[PFR)

I

022853

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS #633145

vs. TDCJ, ET AL

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 11-12-00312-CV

VOLUME I

CAPTION ................................................................................................................. 1

DOCKET SHEET .................................................................................................... 2

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION FILED 08/31/2012 ................................................................................................... 3-164

MOTION AFFIDAVIT RELATING TO PREVIOUS LAW SUITS FILED FILED 08/31/2012 ................................................................................................. 165-170

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FILED 08/31/2012 .......................... :...................................................................... 171-173

NOTICE TO THE COURT THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED 09/12/2012 ................................................................................................ 174-179

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDieE FILED 09/14/2012 ............................................................................................... 180-181

. ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FILED 09/14/2012 ................................................................................................ 182

NOTICE TO THE COURT PERMISSION TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE TO CONTINUE TO FILE HIS LITIGATION UNDER CH. 11.102 FILED 09/27/2012 ............................................................................................... 183-195

ORDER FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS FILED 10/01/20 12 ................................................................................................ 196

-----------~--

I

.I

ORDER TO WITHDRAW FILED 10/01/2012 ............................................................. , .............................. I97

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE FILED I O/I1 /20 I2 ............................................................................................ 198-210

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE FILED 10/11/20I2 ............................................................................................ 21I-2I2

MOTION FOR APPELLATE RECORDS, CLERK'S RECORDS PURSUANT TO RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FILED 10/23/20 I2 ........................................................................................... 213-215

. MOTION PURSUANT TO RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 26.I, A REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OFFACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW FOR FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS LITIGANT FILED 10/23/20 I2 ........................................................................................... 2I6-21 7

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OFFACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FILED I 0/30/2012 ........................................................................................... 2I8

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE ............................ ,........ ,~ ...................................... 2I9

I

CAPTION

STATE OF TEXAS §

COUNTY OF JONES §

THE 259rn DISTRICT COURT OF JONES COUNTY, TEXAS, THE HONORABLE BROOKS HAGLER, JUDGE PRESIDING, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AND THE FOLLOWING INSTRUMENTS AN1) OTHER PAPERS WERE FILED IN THIS CAUSE, TO WIT:

COURT CAUSE NO. DLL'653

"lien ~ fen n5homas :it ~33 11../5 VS.

. ~bt:51 e:l 0x/ r '"'

CIVIL DOCKET

371

ltFAF GA.\PIItr.!'l. 1..,C. me No. of Cu~ NAA1F: OF I'ARTII::.S ATTORNEYS Kind of Action and Party Dem.:.uuling,

{)2..4~5.3 ~Ckw -l'l~c::--Duok-

~

Vol. I Pii~C Pltf.

\"5,

...

/,_$ '.lt/D (n()~ j~.....,;.t;~ --1::JJ/J~- _c; ====~=f=~-:!:::==::r=====:= I I s;, ;z t--· .

1- .• Q& I .

_0;~.1£ of Ord~r' ~ • v ORJ..>E RS Of COL' RT MIN"t:T'E --

BOO

--I\

~I ·n~ IJJW VoL I Pare

. .. . . . . . .. . . ( S/. /j!(f)l)_f<s . .R.'J I~!

I··

·I·. •·

•·

... .. . ··~···

•. I··

~

I

JIM R. WRIGHT CHIEF JlJSTICE Court of Appeals SHERRY WILLIAMSON CLERK

MIKE WILLSON Eleventh District of Texas TELE: 254/629-2638 JUSTICE !00 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 300 FAX: 254/629-2191 P. 0. BOX271 sherry. willia mson@txcou rts.gov JOHN M. BAILEY JUSTICE EASTLAND, TEXAS 76448 www.ll thcoa.courts.state.tx.us

October 9, 2014

Allen Glenn Thomas ChristinA. Cobe, Assistant TDCJ #00633145 Office of the Attorney General French M. Robertson Unit P. 0. Box 12548, Capitol Station 12071 FM 3522 Austin, TX 78711 Abilene, TX 79601 *DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL*

RE: Appellate Case Number: 11-12-00312-CV Trial Court Case Number: 022853 Style: Allen Glenn Thomas v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Officer Marcus A. Adams et al.

The Court has this day AFFIRMED the judgment of the trial court in the above cause.

Copies ofthe Court's opinion and judgment are attached.

Respectfully yours,

~){.-~ Sherry Williamson, Clerk

cc: Dean Rucker, Administrative Judge (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Clerk- Jones County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Brooks Hagler, Judge (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Allen Glenn Thomas, * From the 259th District Court of Jones County, Trial Court No. 022853.

Vs. No. 11-12-00312-CV *October 9, 2014

Texas Department ofCriminal * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J. Justice Officer Marcus A. Adams et al., (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court's opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed .

..,~...:\. -.;.

< .....

Opinion filed October 9, 2014

In The

~Iebentb <!Court of appeals No. 11-12-00312-CV

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS, Appellant v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICER MARCUS A. ADAMS ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 259th District Court Jones County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 022853

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Allen Glenn Thomas, is currently incarcerated at the French M.

Robertson Unit of the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, which is located in Jones County. Appearing prose, he challenges the trial court's order dismissing his suit. We affirm.

On August 31, 2012, Appellant filed the underlying action against seventeen defendants, all of whom were officers or officials employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the French M. Robertson Unit.

Appellant alleged claims of inverse condemnation and conversion under Texas law and alleged that, while he was an inmate, his property was lost or damaged as those claims are provided for under federal law. He also alleged that he was physically injured during a "shakedown" because he was forced to carry all of his belongings to another location even though he was under a medical "no lifting restriction."

On behalf of the seventeen defendants, the attorney general filed a notice on September 12, 2012, to inform the trial court that the trial court had previously found Appellant to be a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.054 (West Supp. 2014). The attorney general stated that the trial court had ordered Appellant to obtain permission from the local administrative judge before Appellant filed any additional pro se litigation in state court and that Appellant had failed to do so prior to filing his petition in this case. See former CIV. PRAC. & REM.§ 11.101 (2011) (current version at CIV. PRAC. & REM.§ 11.101 (West Supp. 2014)). As such, the attorney general requested that the court immediately stay the litigation and requested that the court dismiss the suit unless, within ten days of the notice, Appellant obtained an order from the local administrative judge granting him permission to file suit. See former CIV. PRAC. & REM.§ 11.103(b) (1997) (current version at CIV. PRAC. & REM.§ 11.1035 (West Supp. 2014)).

On September 14, 2012, the trial court signed an order in which it found that ~ppellant had not obtained permission to file suit from a local administrative judge within ten days from the date the attorney general filed its notice that Appellant was a vexatious litigant. The court ordered Appellant's case to be dismissed with prejudice. On that same day, the court also signed an order staying the proceedings. On September 30, 2012, the court signed an order withdrawing the orders that the court had signed on September 14, and the court signed another order staying all proceedings. On October 11, 2012, the court again found that

3

Appellant had not obtained permission from a local administrative judge, and it dismissed Appellant's case with prejudice.

On appeal, Appellant presents eight issues for our review. In his first issue, he asserts that Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is unconstitutional as applied because it violates his right to access the courts, to due process, to due course of law, and to equal protection under the Texas and United States Constitutions. Appellant contends in his second issue that the court order in which the trial court required Appellant to pay $7,500 in security was an arbitrary condition that prevented him access to the courts. He argues in his third issue that the trial court erred when it declared Appellant to be a vexatious litigant and dismissed Appellant's property claims. In his fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh issues, Appellant raises the questions of whether he stated claims of inverse condemnation, malicious prosecution, a due process violation regarding his liberty interest in his expectancy to an early release from prison based on the accumulation of his good-time credits in prison disciplinary cases, and an Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs restrictions. Appellant argues in his eighth and final issue that Appellees waived their "immunity defense under vested property rights and administrative authority in violation of [the] Texas Tort Claims Act" when prison officials kept him classified as a "class line III" in~ate 'so that he could not accrue good conduct time.

We will first address Appellant's challenge to the constitutionality of Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Under Chapter 11, a trial court may place limitations on the litigation activities of a person determined by the court to be a "vexatious litigant." See CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 11.054, § 11.055 (West 2002), § 11.101. Appellant argues that the statutes improperly deny him equal protection, due process, a remedy by due course of law, and access

4

to the courts. The Austin Court of Appeals has upheld the constitutionality of Chapter 11 under the open courts provision, the equal protection clause, and the right to due process. Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451, 456-58 (Tex. App.- Austin 2005, pet. denied). We agree with the Austin court's analysis and holding. However, Appellant does not cite to, and we cannot find, any page in the appellate record iri which Appellant raised his challenge to the constitutionality of Chapter 11 in the trial court. Therefore, Appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; see, e.g., Drum v. Calhoun, 299 S.W.3d 360, 369-70 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (holding defendant waived challenge to constitutionality of vexatious litigant statutes). Appellant's first issue is overruled.

In his second tssue, Appellant challenges the trial court's entry of the vexatious litigant order requiring him to furnish security in the amount of $7,500. We can find no such order in this case in which the trial court ordered Appellant to furnish security. Appellant's second issue is without merit and is overruled.

Appellant argues in his third issue that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his property claims and declared him to be a vexatious litigant. We note that the trial court did not declare Appellant to be a vexatious litigant in this case. The court had previously declared Appellant to be a vexatious litigant and had entered a prefiling order in which it prohibited Appellant from filing future litigation without the permission of the local administrative judge. See former CIV. PRAC. & REM. § ll.lOl(a). Appellant failed to comply with the trial court's prefiling order, and as a result, the trial court dismissed Appellant's case. 1 Former Section 11.103 required the trial court to stay Appellant's litigation when it was notified by Appellees that Appellant was subject to a prefiling order under 1 We note that the legislature has now prohibited appeals from such dismissals. See C!v. PRAC. & REM. § 11.1 035(c) (West Supp. 20 14) ("An order dismissing litigation that was mistakenly filed by a clerk may not be appealed.").

..

\ :. .f i. :, ;J ., • : ~~ : .l .. ' ... . '

, ..

. . • • I .• :., .~.,1._ !

... 1: •,, t· ·•. ;', .\ ....

..

. ;· ~ '

;.,. . .:-~ -~ .

'• ~

·.' ... ' '._

... ,' ·•' I ... . ; . ~ . i ....

... ..!. •.• \ ) • 1 :. .~- f .. ~· t r..~~~ · .~ ._.

. i,. ~ '\ .·. ~- .. ':....- '~ '.

.J ·l'

.. it ·''.

~- .:·

t . ·I

f.:. !:"-!

. ,,, -'

0\o.' ~,

: ' '!

'' ! .. ' If •' '''I ..

:, t- • i_ L .

.. l .i .. ;

··. i: ' .

... •'( :·. ,_ ' . ..

:;

'· ' :::· ~ I ·--

t :.. "·t: ':

."' -·;' 1 '-~-. . ·' .~ / ~ . , .( .. •...it,} i. j: .. •.. ..L . .. ·.' c .t.· 1, • .

J • i J .. l ~ J. i. ·' l' ..... .' ..

1... . • ., <:

'"J.-! .·. ·- ~ ... :;-' -~

t. ~ .. ·' ·,. ,,

5

Section 11.101. !d. § 11.1 03(b ). The statute further provided that the trial court "shall dismiss the litigation unless the plaintiff, not later than the 1Oth day after the date the notice is filed, obtains an order from the local administrative judge under Section 11.102 permitting the filing of the litigation." !d.

After reviewing the record, we have not found, nor does Appellant argue that he secured, a letter from the local administrative judge granting Appellant permissi'on to file his suit against the prison officials. Appellant claims that he filed a motion on Sep_tember 20, 2012, in which he sought permission from the local administrative judge. Appellant further claims th~t the clerk withheld the filing of his motion until September 27, 2012, and that the local administrative judge refused to rule on his motion. Appellant also contends that the local administrative judge is the same judge that was presiding over his case and ultimately dismissed his case. In addition, Appellant contends that he did not get notice that the trial court withdrew its original orders staying the case and dismissing the case. However, Appellant does not explain how this lack of notice affected his ability to secure permission to file his case from the local administrative judge.

Appellant's contention that the local administrative judge in Jones County is the same judge that was presiding over his case is correct. See TEX. Gov'T CODE ANN. § 74.091 (West 2013) ("In a cou·nty with only one district judge, [such as Jones County,] the district judge serves as the local administrative district judge."). And, while Appellant claimed that he already knew that he could not obtain permission from the local administrative judge because the local judge was the same judge who "conspired with TDCJ," he did not seek recusal of the local administrative judge, nor did he request review of his motion by a different administrative judge. Based on the structure of his motion and the fact that Appellant claimed he could not obtain the permission necessary to file his suit, it

6

appears that Appellant was actually requesting mandamus relief from this court regarding permission to file his suit instead of seeking permission from the administrative judge. Thus, it does not appear from the record that Appellant actually sought permission from the local administrative judge. We note that Appellant did not pursue mandamus relief in this court regarding his contention that the local administrative judge refused to rule on his motion. Furthermore, Appellant did not complain below that the local administrative judge refused to rule, nor did he subsequently request a ruling. We cannot conclude from our review of the record that the local administrative judge refused to rule on Appellant's motion seeking permission to file suit, if in fact the motion sought such permission from the local judge. Moreover, even if the local administrative judge had denied Appellant's request for permission, Appellant could not seek review of the judge's denial by direct appeal. See former CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 11.1 02( c) (20 11) (current version at CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 11.1 02(f) (West Supp. 2014)) ("A decision·of a local administrative judge denying a 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.").

We can, however, conclude from the record that Appellant did not obtain permission from the local administrative judge to file his suit as required under the vexatious litigant statutes. Therefore; because Appellant failed to obtain permission as required, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Appellant's suit. Appellant also claims that the trial court erred when it dismissed his claims with prejudice. However, Appellant did not raise this issue in the trial court and, thus, has waived error for appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1; Leonard, 171 S.W.3d at 461 (holding defendant waived argument that his suit should not have been dismissed with prejudice when he failed to timely file a

7

postjudgment motion to correct the judgment). We overrule Appellant's third Issue.

Because we have held that the trial court did not err when it dismissed Appellant's case for Appellant's failure to comply with the prefiling order, we need not consider Appellant's remaining issues as to whether he stated various claims or whether the prison officials waived governmental immunity. See TEX. R. APP.P. 47.1.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JIM R. WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE

October 9, 20 14 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

JIM R. WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE Court of Appeals SHERRY WILLIAMSON CLERK

MIKE WILLSON Eleventh District of Texas TELE: 254/629-2638 · JUSTICE 100 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 300 FAX: 254/629-2191 P. 0. BOX 271 sherry.wi1liamson@txcourts.gov JOHN M. BAILEY JUSTICE EASTLAND, TEXAS 76448 www.txcourts.gov/11 thcoa

December 12, 2014

District Clerk- Jones County Lacey Hansen P. 0. Box 308 Anson, TX 79501 *DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL*

RE: Appellate Case Number: 11-12-00121-CV Trial Court Case Number: 22100 Style: Allen Glenn Thomas v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division et al.

Please be advised that we have this day issued MANDATE in the above cause and emailed it to the Clerk of the trial court pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 18. This Mandate directs the trial court to take action regarding this case consistent with our Court's opinion. Please refer to TEX. R. APP. P. 51.1 concerning the enforcement ofthejudgment. We are attaching copies ofthe Mandate and Bill of Costs for your information.

In addition, as required by Texas Government Code § 51.204( d), we are notifying the trial court clerk that we will destroy all records filed in respect to this case with the exception of indexes, original opinions, minutes and general court dockets no earlier than six (6) years from the date final mandate is issued.

Respectfully yours,

~~·*~. Sherry Williamson, Clerk

By: Myrna McGough, Deputy

cc: ChristinA. Cobe, Assistant (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Allen Glenn Thomas

1 Jlh Court ofAppeals Mandate

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To THE 259TH DISTRICT COURT OF JONES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, on June 12, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Allen Glenn Thomas

11th Court of Appeals No. 11-12-00121-CV and 259th District Court Case No. 22100

Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division et al.

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

"This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court's opinion, we reverse the trial court's order of March 31, 2010, that declared Allen Glenn Thomas to be a vexatious litigant. We affirm the trial court's April 9, 2012 final judgment dismissing Allen Glenn Thomas's claims. "

WHEREFORE WE COMMAND YOU To observe the order of our said Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the HON. JIM R. WRIGHT, Chief Justice of our said Court, with the seal thereof annexed at the City of Eastland, on December 12, 2014.

SHERRY WILLIAMSON, CLERK

By: Myrna McGough, Deputy

- ......

CHAPTER !!.VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS

SUBCHAPTER A GENERAL PROVISIONS:

List.

Chapter !!.Vexatious Litigants consisting ot§§ll.OOl to 11.104

was added by Acts 1997,75th Leg.,ch.806.§1

Another Chapter 1l,Liability Related to Fraudulent Court Records

or a Fraudulent Lien of Claim Filed Agains~ Real or Personal Prop

erty,consisting of§§ll.~Ol to ll.007,as added by Acts 1997,75th L

eg.ch.l89,§16.was renumber as Chapter 12 consisting of§§l2.001 to

12.007 by Acts 1999,76th Leg.,Ch.62,§19.01(3).

e.g.,"APPENDI~ D"

14.

SUBCHAPTER A.GENERAL PROVISIONS:

§ll.OOl.Definitions.

In this Chapter;

(l)"Defendant"means a person or governmental entity against whom

A plaintiff commences or Maintains or seeks to commence or mainta

in a litigation.

(2)"Litigation"means a civil Action commenced,maintained,or pen

ding in any State or federal Court.

(3)"Local administrative judge"means a local administrative dis

trict judge or a local administrative statutory county court judge.

'·

(4)"Moving defendant"means a defendant ~ho moves fo~ an order

under section 11.051 determining that a plaintiff is a vexatious

litigant and requesting security.

(5)"Plaintiff"means an individual who commences or maintains a

litigation.

Added by Acts 1997,75th Leg.Ch.806,§§l,eff.Sept.l,l997.

SUBCHAPTER B.VEXATIOUS LITIGANTS

§11.051. Motion for order Determining Plaintiff a vexatious Litig

ant and Requesting security.

., ... r. .•

In a litigation in this State,the defendant rnayron or before the

90th day af~er the date'the defendant files the original answer or

Makes a special appearance,mov~ the court for an order;

(!)determining that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant;and

(2)requiring the plaintiff to furnish security.

~.

§11.052. Stay of PJ;,oceedings on Filing of Motion.

'" ..

(a)On the filing of a motion under section 11.05l,the litigation

is stayed and the moving defendant is not required to plead;

~~ <

(l)if the motion is denied,before the lOth day after the date it

is denied;or e.g.,~APPENDIX D"

15.

C- .---

•

~- -

§11.052.

(2)if, the mJ>tion is granted, before the 10th day after the date

the ' moving

. .defendant

....... '., . receives written notice that the Plaintiff h

as furnished the required security.

(b)On the filing of a motion under section 11.051 on or after t

he date the trials starts,the litigation is stayed for a period t

he court determines.

§11.053.Hearing.

(a)On receipt of a motion under section 11.051,the Court shall,

After notice to all parties,conduct a hearing to determine whether

to grant the motion.

(b)The court may consider any evidence material to the ground of

the motion,including;

(!)Written or oral evidence;and

(2)evidence presented by witnesses or by affidavit.

§11.054. Criter~a for Finding Plaintiff a vexatious Litigant A co

urt may find a plaintiff a vexatious litigant if the defendant sh

ows that there is not a reasonable probability that the Plaintiff

will prevail in the litigation against the defendant and that;

(l)the plaintiff,in the seven-year period immediately preceding

the date the defendant makes the motion under section 11.051,has

commence~d,proseeuted,or maintained in propria persona at least f

ive litigations other than 'in a small claims court that have been;

(A)Finally determined adversely to the plaintiff;

(B)Permitted to remain pending at least two years without having

been brought to trial or hearing;or

(C)determined by a trial or Appellate Court to be frivolous or

groundless under State or ~eral law or rules of procedure;

e.g.,~APPENDIX D"

16.

• •

§11.054

(2)After a litigation has been finally determined against the Pl

aintiff,the plaintiff repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relit

igate,inpropria persona,eioher;

(A)the validity of the determination against the same defendant

as to whom the litigattion was finally determined;or

(B)the cause of action,Clai~,controversy,or any of the issues of

fact or law determined or concluded by the final determination ag

ainst the same defendant as to whom the litigation was finally de

termined;or

(3)the plaintiff has·previously been declared to be a vexatious

litigant by a State or federal Court in an action or proceeding b

ased on the same or substantially similar facts,transitions,or oc

curence.

§ll~OSS.security.

(a)A Court shall order the plaintiff to furnish security for the

benefit of the moving defendant if the coutt,after hearing the ev

idence on the rnotion,determines that the Plaintiff is a vexatious

litigant,

(b)The Court in its discretion shall determine the date by which

the security must be furnished.

(C)The Court shall provide that the security is an undertaking-by

the plaintiff to assure payment to the moving defendant of the mo

ving defendant's reasonable expenses in curred in or inconnection

with a litigation commenced,caused to be cbmm~~ced,maintained~or caused to be maintained by the plaintiff,including costs and atto

rney's fees.

e.g.,"APPENDIX D"

17.

''·~·

§ 11 · 056. Dismissal for Fai 1 ure toFur"nish security.

The court shall dismiss a litigation as to a moving defendant if

A plaintiff ordered to furnish security does not furnish the secu

rity within the time set by the order.

§ll.057.Dismissal on the Merits.

If the litigation is dismissed on its merits,the moving defendant

has recouse to the security furnished by the Plaintiff in an amou

nt determined by the court.

[Section 11.058 to 11.100 reserved for expansion]

SUBCHAPTER C.PROHIBITING FILING OF NEW LITIGATION.

§ll.lOl.Prefiling order;contempt.

(a)A Court may,on its own motion or the motion of any party,ent

er an order prohibiting a person from filing,inpropria persona,a

New litigation in a court in this State if the court finds,after

Notice and hearing as provided by subchapter B'that;

(l)the person is a vexatious litigant;and

(2)the local administrative judge of the court inwhich the pers

on intends to file the litigation has not granted permission to t

he person under section 11.102 to file the litigation.

~ (b)A person who disobeys an order under subsection(a)is subject

to contempt of court.

§11.102-Permission by Local Administrative Judge.

(a)A local administrative judge may grant permission to a person

found to be a vexatious litigant under section 11.101 to file a 1

itigation only if it appears to the jud~e that the litigation;

(l)has merit;and

(2)has not been filed for the purpose of harassment or delay.

(b)The local administrative judge may condition permission on the e.g.,"APPE-N-Q.IX D"

18.

• .. .

§11.102

furnishing of sectirity for benefit of the defendant as pro~ided in

Subchapter B!

§11.103. Duties of Clerk;Mistaken filing

(a)A Clerk of a court may not file a litigation presented by a

Vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under section 11.

101 unless the litigant obtain an order from the local administra

tive judge permitting the filing.

(b)If the clerk mistakenly files a litigatiori without an order

from the local administrative judge,any party may file with the c

lerk and serve on the plaintiff and the other parties to the suit

a notice stating that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant subje

ct to a prefiling order under section ll.lOl.on the filing of the -f-1)'/

notice, the court shall immediately~ litigation and shall disrni

ss the litigation unless the Plaintiff,not later that the lOth day

After the date the notice is filed,obtains an order from the local

administrative judge under section 11.102 permitting the filing of

the litigation.

(C}If the local administrative judge issues an order permitting t

he Filing of the litigation under subsection(b),the litigation re

mains stayed and the defendant need not plead until the lOth day

After the date the defendant is served with a copy of the order.

§ll.l04.Notice to office of Court Administration of List.

(a}A Clerk of court shall provide the office of Court Adrninistr '

ation of the Texas Judicial system a copy of any prefiling order

issued under section 11.101.

(b)The office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial syst

ern shall maintain a list of vexatious litigants subject to pre fi

ling orders under section 11.101 and shall annually send the list to the clerks of the Courts of this State.

e.g.,"APPENDIX D"

1 Q -

(K) APPENDIX IN CIVIL CASES:

TEXAS CONSTITUTIONS BILL OF RIGHTS ARTICLES 1:

,.·

1,§3 EQUAL RIGHTS: ····~.. -.

sec.3.All free men,when they from a social compact,have equal rights,and no ~n,or

set of men,is entitle to exclusive separate emoluments,or privieges,but in consider-

ation of public services. §3a.EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW:

sec.3a.Equality under the law shall not be denied or abrigad because of sex,race,color,

creed,or national origin.This amendment is self-operative.

§8 FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS, LIIEL: §S.Freedom of speech and press,libel every person shall be at liberty to speak write or publish his opinions on any subject,being responsible for the abuse of that privilege,

and no law shall ever be passed curtalling the liberty of speech or the press.In prosecutions for publication of papers,investigation the conduct of officers or men in publi c capacity,or when the matter published is proper for public information,the truth

thereof may be given in evidence.And in all indictments for libels,the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts,under direction of the Court,as either

case. §13 EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES,CRUEL AND UNUSAL PUNISHMENT,BY DUE COURSE OF LAW:

sec.l3.Excessive bail shall not be required,nor excessive fines imposed,nor cruel or

unusal punishment inflicted.All Courts shall be open,and every person for an injury,

done him,in his lands,goods,person or reputation,shall have remedy by due course of

law. §17. Taking Inverse Condemnation: sec~17.No person's property shall be taken,damage or destroyed for use or applied to

public use without adequater compensation being made,unless by the consent of such

person,and when taken,except for use of the state,such compensation shall be first made, or secured by a deposit of money •••• §19. Deprivation of Life. Liberty, ect,due course of law: sec.l9.No citizen of this state shall be deprived of life,liberty,property,privilegea o r immunities,or in any manner disfranchised,except by due course of the law of the land 26[PFR]

(K) APPENDIX IN CIVIL CASES:

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS:AMENDMENTS:

AMENDMENT 1[1791]

congress shall make no law respecting an establishment or religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,or abridging the freedom of speech,or the press,or the right of the people peacably to assemble,and to petition the Government for redress of grievances

AMENDMENT IV[l791]

The right of the people to be secure in their person,houses,papers,and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated,no warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause,supported by oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched,and the person or thing to be seized.

AMENDMENT V[l791]

No person shall be held to answer for a capitol,or otherwise infamous crime,unless on a

presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,except in cases arising in the land or naval

forces,or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger,nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or

limb;nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor

be deprived of life,liberty,or property,without due process of law,nor shall private

property be taken for public use,without just compensation.

AMENDMENT VI[l791]

In all criminal prosecutions,the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public

Trial,by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,which district shall have been previously ascertain by law,and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,to be confronted with the witnesses against

him,to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,and to have the

Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

AMENDMENT VII[l791]

In Suits at common law,where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,the

right of trial by jury shall be preserved,and no fact tried by jury,shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States than accordinghto the rules of the common Law.

27(PFR]

... ' ~

(K) APPENDIX IN CIVIL CASES:

AMENDMENT VIII (1791]

Excessive bail shall not be required,nor excessive fines imposad,nor cruel and unusal punishment inflicted.

AMENDMENT XIV [1868]

Section l.All parson born or naturalized in the United States,and Subject to the

Jurisdiction thareof,are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they

reside.No State shall make or enforce any law which abridge the privileges or immunities

of citizens of the United States,nor shall any State deprive any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

..

(K) VERIFICATION BY UNSWORN DECLARATION:

!,ALLEN GLENN THOMAS,TDCJ-CIDt633145,being currently incarcerated within the

French M.Robertson Unit of TDCJ-ciD'S system in JONES County,TEXAS,I,do hereby and verify and declares under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing motion/statement made are both true and correct,as well as offered in GOOD FAITH.

[Civ.Prac.& Rem.CODE.§l32.001 et.seq.,/28 u,s.c.§l746]

SIGNED AND DECLARED ON THIS THE_ _--.16.._t....h___day of January 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS,Pro-Se TDCJ-ciDI633145

French M.Robertson Unit 12071 FM 3522 Abilene,Texas 79601-8799 Phone N0.(325)548-9035

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

!,ALLEN GLENN THOMAS,TDCJ-ciDi633145,I,do hereby,certify that a true and correct

copy of this motion/statement made herein are both true and correctly filed TO

CLERK SLAKE A.HAWTHORNE:SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS-201 W.l4th St.ROOM 104-P.O.IOX 12248-

Austin,Texas 787ll,via by U.S.Mail. SIGNED AND CERTIFIED ON THIS THE 16th day of_J.._a.._n.._u.._a....ry._____--~2015

Respectfully Submitted,

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS,Pro-Se fDCJ-ciDi633145 French M.Robertson Unit 12071 FM 3522 Abilene,Texas 79601-8799 Phone N0.(325)548-9035

28(PFR]

..: ,'>

Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711-2248 ~~.._~POs~ ':) Q<"

e ~,t ,....;. a:=

VI;:>"·~::."""~ RL1IZT..:t=Ui'-""

~-~ J:...:::r.oAUI::'"~.Q:;~_._;!;,:3'

z £,;' ~AE!'illliif""~

I . ,... ..,flEc:~-..c.a.. ~~.;;.No-:a~"9(1-1::::·033S.,...., ..,.""...;~~--

. ·. P.·-. . w ~DA'l'E':'·; 5'1'16/ 2 o11 ~·'-'· -.cOArf:"''11-·to~o.0288~.CVi!:l!,;:t.:;; STYLE: ALLEN GLENW THOMAS'....

. 02 1M

• 00080005'28

$ 00.29°

{ v. 'I'E?.nAS. ,.DEPARTMENT OF CR!lll . . . :•~A~ ~IJ?.tvl MAY1'3 2(•11

ZIP CODE 7 8 701

I

l

I

.Tc.•day tht: supt:eme cout:t ..of. Texas gt:anted the Hwtion fc.•t:

(

t

.,.. j ..exten::sion of t~e-tofile_,petition~:fo~;·;review under TEx. R. APP. P.

5;3 ~.1:(f) in.;t.he(aboy.e-~,ef.erem.ced.. case~- The petition for review is ,:'.·:!

··; • :. _;.,'>.' ·, :. ·l .

'.'· . ·, ·.. : . ·. · j .. due .. to bt:. filed no .later.. than.. June 15, 2011.

....... : 7& '-1-C., g "

II MAIL TO:

,. MR. ALLEN GLENN THot-1AS .... ·-##633145· FRENCH M ROBERTSON UNIT ..... ':.-1 .. 12071 FM 3522 , -. I ABILENE TX 79601 ; l \'

JJ,,,J),J; ,,JJ,,/J,,,,,,JII ,,J,J,,,Jl,I.,J.l,,J,l,,l,l.,,li ,,1 .I