Full Opinion

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 25, 2026 In The Fifteenth Court of Appeals NO. 15-26-00150-CV SUSAN FLANDER, Appellant V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SATETY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1 Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C-1-CV-25-000674 MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of appellant Susan Flander’s suit challenging actions of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Enforcement Division (DPS). On July 23, 2025, the trial court granted DPS’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Flander’s suit. On August 4, 2026, Flander filed a document in this Court “seeking review of judicial decisions and related administrative actions.” We construe this document as a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed or 90 days with an extension motion. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. A timely notice of appeal is an essential prerequisite for the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 253 (Tex. 2022). The Clerk of this Court notified Flander of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal as it appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely. The letter warned that unless she timely filed a response demonstrating the Court’s jurisdiction, the Court may dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). In response, Flander requested that any appellate deadlines be equitably tolled. 1 However, we are prohibited from altering the time for perfecting an appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 2. Because Flander’s notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Brister and Justices Field and Farris. 1 In her response, Flander also referred to her filing as an “Original Petition.” To the extent we construe this proceeding as a petition for writ of mandamus, Flander has not shown that she is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (holding that a party is entitled to mandamus relief only upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and it has no adequate remedy by appeal). 2