Jeremy David Oluma v. Maite Oluma

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 19, 2024
• Docket: 01-24-00523-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 19, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00523-CV ——————————— JEREMY DAVID OLUMA, Appellant V. MAITE OLUMA, Appellee

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 24-CCV-074846

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jeremy David Oluma, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal

from the trial court’s July 3, 2024 order sustaining Appellee Maite Oluma’s contest

against Appellant’s statement of indigency status.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. “[C]ourts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction.”

Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n.14 (Tex. 2012) (internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d

759, 763 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (jurisdiction fundamental

in nature and cannot be ignored). Whether we have jurisdiction is a question of law,

which we review de novo. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835,

840 (Tex. 2007). If this case is an appeal over which we have no jurisdiction, the

appeal must be dismissed. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d at 763.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An appellate court has jurisdiction

to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order only if a statute explicitly

authorizes an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447–48

(Tex. 2011); Lehman, 39 S.W.3d at 195; see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). “The trial

court’s order denying indigency status is not a final judgment, nor is there any statute

or rule authorizing an appeal from such an order.” Covington v. State, No. 03-24-

00520-CV, 2024 WL 4643932, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin [3rd Dist.] Oct. 31, 2024,

no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re K.J.M., No. 2-08-038-CV, 2008 WL 703960, at *1

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 13, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of

jurisdiction party’s attempted appeal of trial court’s order sustaining contest to her

2 claim of indigence and noting by contrast that trial court’s indigency ruling within

context of already pending appeal is appealable pursuant to In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d

737, 738-39 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding))).

On October 3, 2024, the Clerk of this Court advised Appellant that his appeal

was subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless, within ten days of the date of

the notice, he filed a written response demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction

over his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),

43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.