Andrew Walker, Jr. v. Wanda Daniels, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carles B. Daniels

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 1, 2023
• Docket: 06-23-00070-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00070-CV

ANDREW WALKER, JR., Appellant

V.

WANDA DANIELS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CARLES B. DANIELS, DECEASED, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021-1518-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Andrew Walker, Jr., proceeding pro se, has filed an appeal in this Court. Upon our

review of Walker’s filing, we noted a potential defect in the Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal.

Section 11.102 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that “[a]

vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 is prohibited from filing, pro

se, new litigation in a court to which the order applies without seeking the permission of . . . the

local administrative judge.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(a). Although the

clerk of this Court may file an appeal from a prefiling order, the clerk “may not file a litigation,

original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a

prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate

local administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a), (d).

The 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County issued its order in trial court cause

number 2021-1518-B, styled Wanda Daniels, Individually and as Personal Representative of the

Estate of Carles B. Daniels, Deceased v. Highland Dallas Freight, Inc., Hana L. Kassa, and

Andrew Walker, Jr., on April 24, 2023, prohibiting Walker from filing any new litigation in a

court of this State without first obtaining permission from a local administrative judge. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101–.103.

By letter dated November 15, 2023, we notified Walker of this potential defect in our

jurisdiction, along with another potential jurisdictional defect, namely, that Walker is attempting

to appeal from an unappealable, interlocutory order. We afforded Walker the opportunity to

2 show this Court how it had jurisdiction over this appeal, including the filing of a supplemental

record, if necessary. We further informed Walker that the failure to respond by November 27,

2023, would result in dismissal of this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). Although Walker responded to our letter, his response failed to demonstrate proper

grounds for our retention of this appeal.

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 30, 2023 Date Decided: December 1, 2023