In Re Carolyn Barnes v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJune 5, 2025
Docket09-25-00193-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Carolyn Barnes v. the State of Texas (In Re Carolyn Barnes v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Carolyn Barnes v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00193-CV __________________

IN RE CAROLYN BARNES

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding Probate Court No. 1 of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-39251-P __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 15, 2025, the local administrative judge for the Statutory Probate

Courts of Montgomery County, Texas, signed an order denying Carolyn Barnes’s

request to file new litigation in Trial Cause Number 20-39251-P, In the Estate of

Darrell John Bednorz, Deceased. Barnes is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling

order that prohibits her from proceeding pro se without obtaining permission from

the appropriate local administrative judge. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §

11.101(a). On May 19, 2025, Barnes filed a petition for a writ of mandamus that

challenges the trial court’s order denying Barnes’s permission to file an intervention

1 in Trial Cause Number 20-39251-P.1 See id. § 11.102(f); see also In re Cooper, No.

05-21-00549-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 6595, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 10,

2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Retzlaff, No. 09-18-00093-CV, 2018 Tex.

App. LEXIS 1836, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 13, 2018, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.) (applying section 11.102 to an intervention filed by a vexatious litigant).

A vexatious litigant may apply for a writ of mandamus with the court of

appeals no later than the 30th day after the date of the decision. Tex. Civ. Prac. &

Rem. Code Ann. § 11.102(f). The 30-day limit is jurisdictional. See In re Carroll,

No. 05-25-00436-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 2564, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr.

15, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Barnes filed her mandamus petition more than 30 days after the local

administrative judge denied leave for her to file her intervention in Trial Cause

Number 20-39251-P. Barnes’s petition is not timely. Accordingly, the petition for a

writ of mandamus is dismissed.

1 Barnes’s mandamus petition includes complaints about the statutory probate court’s rulings in Trial Cause Number 20-39251-P. Barnes also attempted to file a notice of appeal from the statutory probate court’s orders concerning Barnes’s intervention in Estate of Bednorz. As a vexatious litigant Barnes must obtain permission from the local administrative judge before she may proceed in a Texas court. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.102(f). The Clerk of the Court may not file an appeal presented pro se by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate administrative judge permitting the filing. Id. § 11.103(a). 2 PETITION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 4, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 5, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 11.101
Texas CP § 11.101(a)
§ 11.102
Texas CP § 11.102(f)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Carolyn Barnes v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carolyn-barnes-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.