Dr. Michael (Mikhail) Tyurin v. Valuebank, TX Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 3 of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued June 5, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00813-CV ——————————— DR. MICHAEL (MIKHAIL) TYURIN, Appellant V. VALUEBANK, TX, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1092609 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Michael Tyurin, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal from multiple orders in the underlying case. Tyurin has been declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of a prefiling order. Accordingly, Tyurin may not proceed with this appeal without a permission order from the local administrative judge. Because Tyurin has not obtained such an order, we dismiss the appeal. The Office of Court Administration website lists all vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders. See Office of Court Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order, http://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatiouslitigants/ (list last updated May 16, 2018); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.104(b) (requiring office of court administration to maintain list and post list of vexatious litigants on agency’s website). Tyurin is one such litigant. See Tyurin v. Weitzel, Cause N o. 2017-30630 in the 164th District Court of Harris County, Texas (September 19, 2017); see also http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1438922/drmichael-mikhail-tyurin-09_19_17.pdf (lhttp://www.txcourts.gov/media/1438912/thomas florence.pdfast viewed on May 31, 2018); see also Douglas v. Am. Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris County record of vexatious litigants). The Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order unless ( 1 ) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing or (2) the appeal is from a pre-filing order designating the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.103(a). Tyurin is not appealing from a prefiling order 2 designating him a vexatious litigant. See id. § 11.103(d). Thus, Tyurin may not proceed unless the local administrative judge permitted this filing. This Court issued a notice to Tyurin advising him that we would dismiss this appeal unless he responded within 10 days with proof that, before filing this appeal, he had obtained an order from the local administrative judge permitting this appeal. Tyurin did not adequately respond to the notice and the record is devoid of any order permitting the filing of this appeal. Because Tyurin fails to make the requisite showing that the local administrative judge permitted this appeal, we dismiss the appeal. See Kastner v. Fulco, No. 01–13–00100–CV, 2013 WL 6157392, at * 1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 21, 2013, no pet.) (dismissing appeal after providing notice of intent to dismiss because vexatious litigant appellant failed to provide copy of order permitting filing of appeal); McCray v. Prudential Ins., No. 14–12–00860–CV, 2012 WL 5586804, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.) (same). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown. 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.
