In Re Michael a Powell v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 21, 2023
• Docket: 14-22-00655-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 21, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00655-CV

IN RE MICHAEL A. POWELL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 455th District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-21-001728

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 9, 2022, relator Michael A. Powell, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court.1 See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator has been declared a vexatious litigant and is

1 Relator initially filed this mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals. Pursuant to section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code, the Texas Supreme Court transferred this proceeding to this Court on September 9, 2022. Powell’s direct appeal, Michael A. Powell v. Jenny Hodgkins, Executive Director, State Bar of Texas; 14-22-00300-CV, also was transferred to this Court on April 27, 2022 by the Texas Supreme Court, and was affirmed by this Court on March 9, 2023. therefore subject to the pre-filing order under section 11.101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.101, 11.103.

Under section 11.103(a), the clerk of this court may not file an original proceeding or other matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing or the petition is from a pre-filing order entered under section 11.101 designating the person a vexatious litigant. Id. § 11.103(a) & (d). The petition does not assert and no appendix or mandamus record has been provided to demonstrate that this is a mandamus from a pre-filing order entered under section 11.101.

Relator has not shown that he has obtained an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this original proceeding.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. See id. § 11.1035(b); In re Johnson, No. 14-22-00332-CV, 2022 WL 3093195, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 4, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing vexatious litigant’s petition for writ of mandamus in absence of order from local administrative judge permitting filing of original proceeding).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.