In Re Lawrence Edward Thompson v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Lawrence Edward Thompson v. the State of Texas (In Re Lawrence Edward Thompson 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.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-24-00375-CV
IN RE LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON _____________
Original Proceeding
From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Lawrence Edward Thompson, is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling
order that requires him to obtain permission from the Local Administrative Judge (LAJ)
prior to filing any new litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101. In this
mandamus proceeding, Thompson complains that the LAJ for Walker County, Texas
abused his discretion when he denied Thompson’s request for permission to file new
litigation. See id. § 11.102(f).
Thompson filed a Motion Requesting Permission to File New Litigation, dated
June 26, 2024, and a second motion on July 5, 2024, requesting permission to file a petition requesting depositions to investigate a potential claim or suit against Texas
Department of Criminal Justice employees. The LAJ denied the first motion on July 9,
2024. Thompson then filed a Motion Requesting Permission to File a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus because his first motion was denied. The LAJ denied the second motion
requesting permission to file new litigation and the motion requesting permission to file
a petition for writ of mandamus on August 7, 2024.
A Local Administrative Judge may grant permission to a vexatious litigant
subject to a prefiling order to file proposed litigation only if it appears to the judge that
the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.
Id. § 11.102(d). The writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or
the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy available by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). By statute, no appeal lies from a Local Administrative Judge’s denial of
permission to file a suit, but mandamus relief may be available. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
CODE ANN. § 11.102(f). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision
so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding); In re Jones, No. 09-24-
00045-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1743, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont March 7, 2024, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.).
In re Thompson Page 2 The burden to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief is on the relator. See
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. In his motions, Thompson requested permission to engage in
discovery to investigate a potential lawsuit. We conclude Thompson has failed to
demonstrate that he presented a meritorious lawsuit that the LAJ arbitrarily refused
permission to file. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(d); In re Jones, 2024
Tex. App. LEXIS 1743, at *2. Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s petition for writ of
mandamus.
STEVE SMITH Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith (Chief Justice Gray dissents.) Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed December 19, 2024 [OT06]
In re Thompson Page 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Lawrence Edward Thompson v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lawrence-edward-thompson-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.