In Re Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 10, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00392-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 10, 2025

In the

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00392-CV ——————————— IN RE RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Ronald Dwayne Whitfield has filed a petition for writ of mandamus,

requesting that we order the trial court to void a 2017 judgment terminating his

parental rights and the subsequent adoption of the child involved in the case below.1

1 The underlying termination-of-parental-rights case was trial court cause no. 2017- 02559J, which was decided by the 314th District Court of Harris County and affirmed on appeal by this Court. See In the Interest of K.L.W., No. 01-18-00485- CV 2018 WL 6378008 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 5, 2018, no pet.) (not designated for publication.). Relator has been adjudicated a vexatious litigant subject to prefiling orders. 2

The prefiling orders all state that, pursuant to Section 11.101 of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code, relator is prohibited from filing new litigation in any

Texas court without obtaining prior permission from a local administrative judge. A

prefiling order entered by a district or statutory county court applies to each court in

this state. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.101(e).

Section 11.102 provides that a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order is

prohibited from filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which the order applies

without seeking the permission of—

(1) the local administrative judge of the type of court in which the vexatious litigant intends to file, except as provided by Subdivision (2); or

(2) the local administrative district judge of the county in which the vexatious litigant intends to file if the litigant intends to file in a justice or constitutional county court.

Id. § 11.102(a).

Section 11.103 provides that, subject to the exception in Subsection (d), “a

clerk of a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim

presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section

2 See https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1325333/Prophet-Ronald-Dwayne-Whitfield- Cause-No-2015-22882.pdf; https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1337797/Prophet- Ronald-Dwayne-Whitfield-Cause-No-2015-45473.pdf; https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1328157/Prophet-Ronald-Dwayne-Whitfield- Cause-No-2015-22666.pdf

2 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative

judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing.” Id. § 11.103(a)

(emphasis added). The exception in Subsection (d) permits a clerk of a court of

appeals to file an appeal from a prefiling order that designates a person a vexatious

litigant or a timely-filed writ of mandamus under 11.102. Id. § 11.103(d). The local

administrative judge’s decision to deny permission is not grounds for appeal but the

litigant may apply for a writ of mandamus not later than the 30th day after the date

of the decision. See Id. § 11.102(f).

Relator’s petition is an attempted collateral attack on the 2017 termination-of-

parental-rights judgment. Thus, relator must provide proof of permission from the

local administrative judge to file this mandamus. See id. § 11.103(a). Because

relator has not made the required showing that the local administrative judge

permitted this original proceeding, relator may not proceed with this original

proceeding, and we must dismiss the petition. See Florence v. Guarnelo, No. 01-

17-00690-CV, 2017 WL 5495129, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 16,

2017, no pet.) (mem. op) (dismissing appeal after failing to provide proof that local

administrative judge gave permission for filing of appeal); Kastner v. Fulco, No. 01-

13-00100-CV, 2013 WL 6157392, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 21,

2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding same).

3 Accordingly, we dismiss this petition. We also dismiss any pending motions

as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Gunn, and Dokupil.