In re R. Wayne Johnson Appeal from 239th District Court of Brazoria County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued January 25, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00611-CV ——————————— IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, R. Wayne Johnson, incarcerated and acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, appearing to assert that the trial court acted without jurisdiction and issued a “void” order of dismissal.1 1 The underlying case is R. Wayne Johnson v. Dale Wainwright, Patrick O’Daniel, Greg Abbott, Brian Collier, Matt Greer, Nancy Juren, Ken Paxton, and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Cause No. 113787-CV, pending in the 239th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable Patrick Sebesta presiding. Relator has been declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of three pre-filing orders, prohibiting him from filing, pro se, new litigation without seeking the permission of an appropriate local administrative judge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101, 11.102. The most recent pre-filing order was signed by a Travis County district court in Johnson v. Bell, No. D-1-GN10-001424 (345th Dist. Ct., Travis County, Tex., Aug. 26, 2010). See Office of Court Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Pre-Filing Order, https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2022); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.104(b) (requiring Office of Court Administration to maintain and post list of vexatious litigants on agency’s website); Douglas v. Porter, No. 14-10-00055-CV, 2011 WL 1601292, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 26, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“A court may . . . take judicial notice of a prior finding that [a party] is a vexatious litigant.”). The Clerk of this Court may not file an original proceeding or other claim presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless the litigant first obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge permitting the filing. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a). On December 23, 2021, the Clerk of this Court notified relator that this original proceeding was subject to dismissal unless he responded within ten days with proof that, before filing his 2 petition for writ of mandamus, he obtained an order from the appropriate local administrative judge permitting his petition. In response to the notice, relator did not produce an order permitting the filing of his petition for writ of mandamus or otherwise adequately respond. Accordingly, we dismiss the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction. See id. § 11.1035(b); In re Johnson, No. 14-21-00314-CV, 2021 WL 2837189, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 8, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing vexatious litigant’s petition for writ of mandamus in absence of order from local administrative judge permitting filing of original proceeding); In re Johnson, No. 08-15-00162-CV, 2015 WL 3505177, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 3, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (same). All pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Countiss, and Guerra. 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.
