Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00377-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1 By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator R. Wayne Johnson raises complaints regarding jurisdiction and the obstruction of justice. However, relator has been designated as a vexatious litigant and is subject to a prefiling order. See Office of Court Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Prefiling Order, available at https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants (last updated May 15, 2026); 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits a court to designate a plaintiff as a vexatious litigant if the defendant proves that: (1) in reasonable probability, the plaintiff will not prevail in the case against the defendant; and (2) the plaintiff has a history of pro se litigation covered by the statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.054; Serafine v. Crump, 691 S.W.3d 917, 920 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam); In re Casey, 589 S.W.3d 850, 852 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Generally, “a clerk of a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant . . . unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge . . . permitting the filing.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a); see id. §§ 11.101, 11.102(a); Reeves v. Cent. Hous. Nissan, 617 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.); Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593 S.W.3d 398, 404 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.). In this case, relator did not support his petition for writ of mandamus with an order from the appropriate local administrative judge granting relator permission to proceed with the filing. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102. On May 13, 2026, the Clerk of the Court advised relator by certified mail that the Court would dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus unless relator filed such an order with the Court within ten days from the date of his receipt of the letter. See id. §§ 11.102, 11.103, 11.1035. Relator did not file such an order and did not otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directive. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the applicable law, and the foregoing events, is of the opinion that this original proceeding 2 should be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice Delivered and filed on the 29th day of May, 2026. 3