VEXATIOUS LITIGANT STATUTE - CASE LAW
Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code addresses vexatious litigants—persons
who abuse the legal system by filing numerous, frivolous lawsuits. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE
ANN. §§ 11.001-11.056 (Vernon 2002). We review a trial court's declaration of a vexatious litigant
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Douglas v. Am. Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 879 (Tex.App.-
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. §§ 11.054-.056. The
test 283*283 for an abuse of discretion is whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably and
without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.
W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985).
PATRICK OLAJIDE AKINWAMIDE v. TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, CNA INSURANCE
COMPANY AND AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-01054-CV,
___ SW3d ___, 03-11-08) motion for free appellate record denied (bill of review fails, but vexatious litigant
finding and award of security reversed)
In Re: R. Wayne Johnson 06-11-00096-CV (Tex.App. - Texarkana Oct 7, 2011)
R. Wayne Johnson has petitioned this Court for mandamus relief. His petition complains of the trial court’s order
dismissing Johnson’s suit with prejudice. We deny relief.
Johnson is on the State of Texas’ list of vexatious litigants. See generally Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 11.051–.057
(West 2002). Johnson has attached to his petition for mandamus relief a copy of the trial court’s order, which states in relevant
part: “Plaintiff Johnson did not obtain permission from the local administrative judge within 10 days of filing of Notice of
Vexatious Litigant Status of Plaintiff.” The trial court then dismissed Johnson’s suit with prejudice.
Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty
imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig.
proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief.
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding);
see Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7.
Johnson has provided this Court with nothing to indicate he timely obtained permission from the local administrative judge
to file his suit in the trial court. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.101–.102 (West 2002). There is nothing to indicate
the trial court abused its discretion in entering the complained-of order; in fact such dismissal would have been required if
Johnson failed to provided the required permission. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 11.103(b) (West 2002).
We deny Johnson’s request for relief.
Bailey C. Moseley