Nathaniel Jones III v. Houston Police Department

Opinion

Opinion issued August 11, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-00180-CV

____________

NATHANIEL JONES, III, Appellant

V.

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1078155

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order sustaining a contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence for trial court costs and ordering that appellant pay the costs of his suit in the trial court.  A partial clerk’s record was filed so that the Court could determine its jurisdiction. 

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments.  Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).  Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if authorized by statute.  Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001).

The record reveals that no final judgment has been entered in this case.  Both the trial court’s order refusing to waive the costs based on appellant’s affidavit and the trial court’s order that appellant pay the costs of his suit are interlocutory orders.  Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an interlocutory appeal to be taken from these orders.  See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2008); see, e.g., Minnfee v. Lexington, No. 04-09-00770-CV, 2010 WL 381367, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 3, 2010, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order on motion to rule for costs); Jones v. Houston Police Dep’t, No. 14-10-00916-CV, 2011 WL 61867, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 6, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order sustaining contest to affidavit of indigence for trial court costs).

We may review a challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence only when it is made as part of a pending appeal from a final judgment or other appealable order.  See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1; In re Arroyo, 988 S.W.2d 737, 738–39 (Tex. 1998). 

On May 24, 2011, the Court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this court’s jurisdiction on or before June 3, 2011.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).  All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Brown.