Demetrius T. Crockett v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc.

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
• Decided: April 3, 2026
• Docket: 03-26-00202-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-26-00202-CV

Demetrius T. Crockett, Appellant

v.

Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1-CV-24-004988, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Demetrius T. Crockett, acting pro se, filed an appeal that we stayed on

January 26, 2026, allowing him an opportunity to obtain the local administrative judge’s

permission to file this appeal because, in a separate cause, Crockett has been declared a

vexatious litigant. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.054 (stating criteria for finding

plaintiff vexatious litigant). Our stay order advised Crockett that failure to obtain the local

administrative judge’s permission would result in dismissal of this appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Madugula v. FM 969 Com. Dev., LLC, No. 03-24-00565-CV,

2024 WL 4362839, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 2, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (following

similar procedure).

The Travis County district court’s order declaring Crockett a vexatious litigant

prohibits him from filing as a pro se party “any new litigation in a court in Texas against any

party,” unless he first obtains “permission from the appropriate local administrative judge as required by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 11.102(a).” See Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code §§ 11.101(a) (authorizing court to enter order prohibiting person from filing new

litigation in court to which order applies without permission from appropriate local

administrative judge if court finds person is vexatious litigant), .102 (addressing permission by

local administrative judge); see also Madugula, 2024 WL 4362839, at *1 (noting that prefiling

order entered by district court applies to each court in this state). When a vexatious litigant is

subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101, a clerk of a court may not file a litigation,

original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant unless the

litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge permitting the filing.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(a); Madugula, 2024 WL 4362839, at *1; see Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.1035 (providing procedure for dismissal of litigation mistakenly filed

without requisite order from local administrative judge).

Crockett filed no response to our request that he demonstrate permission from the

local administrative judge to file this appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(a).

Because a prerequisite to filing Crockett’s appeal was not met, this appeal should not have been

filed. See id.; Madugula, 2024 WL 4362839, at *2 (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction

because appellant who had been declared vexatious litigant had not requested permission from

local administrative judge). Accordingly, we lift the stay and dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

_________________________________ Karin Crump, Justice

2 Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 3, 2026