In Re Alice Barryer Lynch, Tonja Lynch, and Felicia Lynch v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 06-25-00047-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

No. 06-25-00047-CV

IN RE ALICE BARRYER LYNCH, TONJA LYNCH, AND FELICIA LYNCH

Original Mandamus Proceeding

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

Relators, Alice Barryer Lynch, Tonja Lynch, and Felicia Lynch, proceeding pro se, have

petitioned this Court for mandamus relief.1 Relators ask this Court to compel Respondent, the

Honorable Rick McPherson, judge of the County Court at Law of Panola County, to vacate its

“Final Judgment for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution” entered in trial court cause number

8214. Relators also ask this Court to order Respondent to take no further action in trial court

cause number 8214 until it gives proper notice and holds a hearing in the matter. Furthermore,

Relators ask this Court to compel the Panola County clerk to perform her duties by allowing

Relators to file a pro se application to determine heirship of Frank Barryer.2

Rule 52.3(g) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, entitled “Form and Contents of

Petition,” states, “The petition must state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to

the issues or points presented. Every statement of fact in the petition must be supported by

citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g).

Relators have submitted to this Court a 238-page document, which includes a 17-page

petition and approximately 218 pages of alleged exhibits. Yet, there are no citations to the

1 On April 3, 2025, Felicia Lynch and Tonja Lynch were declared vexatious litigants in trial court cause number 2024-318, styled Felicia Lynch and Tonja Lynch v. James Fite Carter, et al. That order prohibited Felicia and Tonja Lynch from filing any new litigation in a court of this State without first obtaining permission from a local administrative judge. TEXAS JUDICIAL BRANCH, Lynch, et al. v. Carter, et al., No. 2024-318 (123rd Jud. Dist. Ct. Panola Cnty. Apr. 3, 2025, order), https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460252/tonja-lynch.pdf; see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101–.103. Felicia and Tonja Lynch have filed a direct appeal of the trial court’s vexatious litigant order in our cause number 06-25-00044-CV, and their appeal is currently pending. 2 This Court has limited mandamus jurisdiction. We may issue a writ of mandamus only against a judge of a district or county court in our appellate district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(c) (Supp.). That jurisdiction does not extend to other parties, such as district attorneys or district clerks, unless such mandamus relief would be necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Supp.); see In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding).

2 record in Relators’ petition. See id. Therefore, Relators’ petition does not meet the requirements

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Accordingly, we deny Relators’ petition for a writ of mandamus.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 12, 2025 Date Decided: June 13, 2025