in Re Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. ( 2018 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00368-CV
___________________________
IN RE ALEX MELVIN WADE, JR., Relator
Original Proceeding
Trial Court Nos. CV-18-05-384, CV-17-10-884, CV-17-06-524
Before Pittman, Gabriel, and Kerr, JJ.
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. filed this petition for writ of mandamus. Relator
has been adjudged to be a vexatious litigant in prefiling orders in the underlying
district court proceedings in Trial Court Cause No. CV-18-05-384, but he was also
previously determined to be a vexatious litigant in a prefiling order in the 151st
District Court in Harris County, Wade v. Bank of America N.A., No. 2017-39002, the
mandamus and appeal of which are pending, Nos. 14-18-00486-CV, 14-18-00487-CV
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] consolidated July 19, 2018). See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 11.101(a), (e) (West 2017) (allowing a district or statutory county
court to enter a prefiling order applicable to all state courts); Office of Court
Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order,
http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants/ (last updated Nov. 27,
2018, and last visited Dec. 5, 2018); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 11.104 (West 2017) (requiring the Office of Court Administration to maintain and
post the list).
Even if we consider Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in this court as a
challenge to the respondent’s prefiling orders, the Harris County district court’s
prefiling order triggered the requirement that Relator obtain an order from the local
administrative judge permitting the filing of this petition for writ of mandamus. See
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.001(2) (“‘Litigation’ means a civil action
commenced, maintained, or pending in any state or federal court”), .102(a) (“A
2
vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 is prohibited from
filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which the order applies without seeking the
permission of . . . the local administrative judge . . . .”) (West 2017); see also id.
§ 11.103(a) (stating general rule that “a clerk of a court may not file a[n] . . . original
proceeding . . . by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section
11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative
judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing”); In re Johnson (Johnson I),
No. 03-13-00531-CV, 2013 WL 4822489, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 30, 2013,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Johnson is a vexatious litigant who is subject to
prefiling orders under chapter 11 of the civil practice and remedies code for any
litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim he presents.”).
Nothing in the record shows that Relator obtained an order from the local
administrate judge permitting the filing of this original proceeding. See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.102(a), .103(a). We therefore notified Relator on November
15, 2018 that his petition was subject to the prefiling requirement and directed him to
provide the required order by November 26, 2018 or risk dismissal. See id.
§§ 11.102(a), .1035(b). We have received no response.
Because Relator failed to respond to our notice and offered no proof that he
complied with chapter 11 by obtaining an order from the local administrative judge
permitting the filing of this mandamus petition, we dismiss it. See id.; In re Newsome,
No. 01-17-00932-CV, 2018 WL 2436629, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May
3
31, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Johnson, No. 08-15-00162-CV,
2015 WL 3505177, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 3, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.); In re Johnson, No. 03-14-00006-CV, 2014 WL 411763, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin
Jan. 31, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Johnson I, 2013 WL 4822489, at *1.
Per Curiam
Delivered: December 6, 2018
4