Senrick Wilkerson v. The City of Dallas, et al. Appeal from 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion by chief justice wright)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 20, 2016 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00938-CV SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant V. CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONA-ROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, Appellees On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00716-D MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright By letter dated September 9, 2016, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, there does not appear to be a final judgment. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern with an opportunity for appellees to file a response. Appellant filed a letter brief but appellees did not. Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s July 24, 2016 order denying two of his pretrial motions and overruling his objections to a joint motion to declare him a vexatious litigant. On the record before this Court, it appears the motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigant remains pending in the trial court. Appellant contends there is a final judgment and relies on the following statement in the July 24th order: “[t]he motions are DENIED and the objections are OVERRULED.” This statement does not show that a final judgment was rendered. Rather, it shows that the trial court considered and ruled on appellant’s two motions and objections, nothing more. Because the record before this Court does not contain a final judgment or other appealable interlocutory order, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE 160938F.P05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant No. 05-16-00938-CV On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-00716-D. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. V. CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONAROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, Appellees In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellees CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONA-ROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ recover their costs of this appeal from appellant SENRICK WILKERSON. Judgment entered October 20, 2016. –3–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
