In Re Alejandro Hernandez v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————

No. 08-25-00225-CV
————————————

In re Alejandro Hernandez, Relator

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Relator, Alejandro Hernandez Jr., was declared a vexatious litigant on April 17, 2019, and

is now subject to a prefiling order which prohibits him from filing any action in a Texas court

without first obtaining permission from the local administrative judge. 1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. §11.101. For the reasons below, we dismiss the petition.

On September 5, 2025, Hernandez filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel

Respondent, the Honorable Judge Sue Kurita, “to grant The Freedom Indeed Foundations’ request

for permission to proceed with litigation under Sections 11.101 and 11.102.” Believing this request

sought relief on behalf of a corporate entity, this Court issued an order notifying Hernandez that

1
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order, Alejandro Hernandez,
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1444722/alejandro-hernandez.pdf (last visited October 23, 2025).
only a licensed attorney may represent other parties. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 81.101–.102

(requiring state bar membership to practice law); id. §§ 83.001–.006 (prohibiting unlicensed

persons from practicing law). We ordered The Freedom Indeed Foundation to amend its petition

to comply with the rules for corporate representation, or face dismissal. In response, Hernandez

filed an amended petition clarifying he does not represent The Freedom Indeed Foundation and

seeks only to represent himself.

Chapter 11 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires courts to dismiss litigation,

presented pro se by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, unless the litigation is presented

with an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. §11.1035(b) (the court “shall dismiss the litigation unless the [vexatious litigant] not

later than the 10th day after the date the notice is filed, obtains an order from the appropriate local

administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing of the litigation”).

Because the amended petition seeks relief for Hernandez and was filed pro se, this Court

immediately stayed the proceeding by order dated October 6, 2025, as mandated by § 11.1035(b).

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.1035(b). (requiring the court to “immediately stay”

litigation filed by a pro se vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order). Our order notified

Hernandez that this petition would be dismissed unless he obtained an order granting permission

to proceed from the appropriate local administrative judge by October 16, 2025. See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §11.1035(b) (mandating dismissal after ten days). Hernandez has not

provided this Court with such an order. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition and all pending

motions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §11.1035(b).

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

October 24, 2025

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

2