In Re R. Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 16, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00227-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00227-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator R. Wayne Johnson seeks to compel

the trial court to vacate an order signed on June 14, 2001, in cause number 2001-1159-

0-CV-B in the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas. However, relator has been

designated as a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. See Office of Court

Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Prefiling Order, available at

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants (last updated May 14, 2025);

see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.104(b). According to the list compiled by

the Office of Court Administration (OCA), relator was found to be a vexatious litigant in

the underlying trial court proceedings and in two other cases originating from Harris

County, Texas, and Travis County, Texas.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The

relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,

492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d

424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a

pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary

relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must provide an appendix

and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3,

52.7(a).

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits a court to designate a

plaintiff as a vexatious litigant if the defendant proves that: (1) in reasonable probability,

the plaintiff will not prevail in the case against the defendant; and (2) the plaintiff has a

history of pro se litigation covered by the statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 11.054; Serafine v. Crump, 691 S.W.3d 917, 920 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam); In re Casey,

589 S.W.3d 850, 852 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Generally, “a clerk of a

court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro

2 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 ANN.

§ 11.103(a); see id. §§ 11.101, 11.102(a); Reeves v. Cent. Hous. Nissan, 617 S.W.3d

676, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.); Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593

S.W.3d 398, 404 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.).

In this case, relator did not file a record or appendix in support of his request for

mandamus relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a). More specifically, relator

did not support his petition for writ of mandamus with an order from the appropriate local

administrative judge granting relator permission to proceed with the filing. See TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102. On April 28, 2025, the Clerk of the Court advised

relator by certified mail that the Court would dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus

unless relator filed such an order with the Court within ten days from the date of his receipt

of the letter. See id. §§ 11.102, 11.103, 11.1035. Relator did not file such an order and

did not otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directive.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the applicable law, and the foregoing events, is of the opinion that this original proceeding

should be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 16th day of May, 2025.