Synnachia McQueen v. Wayne Scott, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

Annotate this Case
McQueen v. Scott et al /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-96-192-CV

 

SYNNACHIA McQUEEN,

Appellant

v.

 

WAYNE SCOTT, ET AL.,

Appellees

 

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 30,093

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 

Synnachia McQueen sued Wayne Scott and a host of other Department of Criminal Justice officials. Anthony Hudson sought to intervene in the action as a plaintiff. After the court denied Hudson's motion to intervene, Hudson filed a notice of appeal in an attempt to bring an interlocutory appeal from the court's order. By letter from our clerk, we advised Husdson that we questioned our jurisdiction over his appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 60(a)(2), 83. In response, Hudson requests that we order the trial court to rule on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, apparently believing that our jurisdictional concerns related to that motion.

His response misses the mark. "It is settled law that an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention may not be appealed by the intervenor before the rendition of a final judgment." Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1991, writ denied). Such an order is interlocutory. L.U.L.A.C. v. Lo-Vaca Gath., 527 S.W.2d 507, 508 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 959, 96 S. Ct. 1739, 48 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1976). We do not have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders except for certain enumerated exceptions, which do not include the court's ruling on a motion to intervene. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.012, 51.014 (Vernon 1986 & Supp. 1997).

Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

 

PER CURIAM

 

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed November 6, 1996

Do not publish