Johnny Partain v. State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00005-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
No. 15-25-00005-CV 8/29/2025 2:18 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS

In The
AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/29/2025 2:18:00 PM

Fifteenth Court Of Appeals CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

JOHNNY PARTAIN
Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

Appellant’s Emergency Motion To Dismiss The District
Court Case For Mootness

JOHNNY R. PARTAIN
7020 N 16th Street
McAllen, Texas 78504
956-240-1821
No. 15-25-00005-CV

In The
Fifteenth Court Of Appeals

JOHNNY PARTAIN
Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

Appellant’s Emergency Motion To Dismiss The District
Court Case For Mootness

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

COMES NOW JOHNNY PARTAIN, Appellant in the above styled and numbered

cause and files his Appellant’s Emergency Motion To Dismiss The District Court Case For Mootness,

and respectfully shows unto the Court the following.

1. Currently, this Appeals Court is reviewing Travis County District case no. D-1-GN-

24-00256 (Travis case) regarding whether Partain had an interest in the state’s asset for the

compensation he received pursuant to a debt owed to him by the State of Texas. For nearly

10 months the State of Texas through Attorney General Kenneth Paxton and Land
Commissioner Dawn Buckingham, illegally used the judiciary through the Travis case to

control Partain’s property, to uncompensate Partain and dissipate tens of millions of dollars

of his property (so far), and to violate his civil liberties through a fraudulent permanent

injunction and through a criminal contempt complaint that alleges to adjudicate Partain’s

property titles, on the premise that Partain was owed no debt and was not entitled to the

compensation he secured from the State of Texas. The Travis case is parallel litigation and

is subordinate to Hidalgo County District case no. C-0929-12-F, filed on April 5, 2012,

wherefrom circumstances have changed.

2. Circumstances recently consolidated favoring Partain through a final court order in

Johnny Partain v. State of Texas, Hidalgo County District case no. C-0929-12-F, which

directly contradict the State of Texas in the parallel Travis case. The final order officially

destroys the state’s standing to complain about Partain collecting compensation from the

state, making litigation in the Travis case MOOT.

3. On July 29, 2025, the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County vindicated Johnny

Partain by entering its final judgment in Johnny Partain v. State of Texas, case no. C-0929-

12-F, et al. (Hidalgo Court) finding that “Johnny Partain has already been justly and

adequately compensated by the State Of Texas for all his claims in the above styled and

number cause, making this case MOOT.” The case was an inverse condemnation case

complaining of constitutional violations and of Partain’s property being taken, used, and

destroyed, by the state, its political subdivisions, and public officials without compensating

Partain. Hidalgo Court established through its final order that Partain was owed a debt and

that he was compensated for that debt as per US and Texas constitutional requirements for
just and adequate compensation (Partain’s inverse condemnation petition in case no. C-

0929-12-F was designed as “sum certain”). The Court also ordered “that any orders or

judgments previously issued in this case are vacated.” The Court ordered “that this case is

DISMISSED with prejudice,” affirming and retiring the issues therein with res judicata -

that the State of Texas owed a debt to Partain and the State of Texas compensated Partain

in all his claims. See the attached final Order.

The Travis case is based on the exact same issues as that of the Hidalgo case: Did

the State of Texas owe Johnny Partain a compensable debt? The final answer is YES, and

the State of Texas compensated Partain for the debt mostly through execution on Partain’s

UCC lien - since the state has no other official process to compensate citizens when it fails

to pay for property it takes, uses, or destroys - and then claims immunity to suit. The

Hidalgo case vindicated Partain that he did indeed achieve compensation from the State of

Texas. It is Kenneth Paxton and Dawn Buckingham that use the State of Texas through

the Travis case to uncompensate Partain. They violate the US and Texas constitutions,

forcing the State of Texas through its judiciary into an illegal position against Partain.

Furthermore, the Hidalgo case had dominant jurisdiction over the Travis case since it

was the first court to exercise jurisdiction over the issues between Johnny Partain and the

State of Texas. The Travis County case should have been abated, and needs to be abated,

since it now moot. Texas should have brought its arguments to the Hidalgo case to enforce

its orders if it really thought it had enforceable orders upon which it could rely in the Travis

case. In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 294 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Gonzalez

v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. 2005); Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760
S.W.2d 245, 248 (Tex. 1988). Kenneth Paxton and Dawn Buckingham chose their venue

poorly.

The Hidalgo case’s final order contradicts the State of Texas’ entire position in the

Travis case that there was no debt owed to Partain and that he couldn’t collect it. The

Hidalgo case’s final order also makes all the issues in the Travis case MOOT because there

is no relief the courts can offer to avoid the collection of the state’s debt pursuant to the

constitution[s] since it has already occurred and because it has been recognized as being just

and adequate compensation in the Hidalgo case. A case is moot if a controversy ceases to

exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Allstate Ins. Co. v.

Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. 2005). A controversy must exist between the parties at

every stage of the legal proceeding, including the appeal. Bd. Of Adjustment of City of San

Antonio v. Wende, 92 S. W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002). "[W]hen a case becomes moot the only proper

judgment is one dismissing the cause." Polk v. Davidson, 196 S.W.2d 632, 633 (Tex. 1946); see also

Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d at 416 ("If a case is moot, the appellate court is required to vacate any judgment

or order in the trial court and dismiss the case."). The court must vacate any orders or judgments

previously issued in the district case and dismiss the district case for want of jurisdiction.

Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).

In review, the State Of Texas, Appellee herein, filed its Plaintiff ’s First Amended Petition

And Request For Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, And Permanent Injunction (C.R.

at 8-20) in the Travis case on November 4, 2024, claiming that “upon information and

belief, the State does not owe Partain any legal debt” (Id. ¶ 11). Texas claimed that “false

claim of a security interest in state property interferes with the State’s vested property
rights” (Id. ¶ 13). Texas then asserted that “[S]pecifically, Partain knew or should have

known that he does not have a security interest in any of the State’s property when he filed

or caused to be filed the Financing Statement because Partain’s claims of an unlawful taking

against him by the State have been adjudicated and denied.” (Id. ¶ 13). Texas relied upon its

misunderstandings, or its misrepresentations, to the Travis County District Court and

disingeneously cited that a Hidalgo County District Court had already filed a final judgment

in cause no. C-0929-12-F against Partain finding that Texas owed no debt. (Id. ¶ 15). Texas

prayed that the Court would permanently enjoin Partain [sic] “from attempting to collect

the alleged security interest (the debt) described in the Financing Statement.”(Id. ¶ 36, 37).

Partain responded in his Defendant’s Quick Response to Plaintiff ’s Brief Regarding it’s

Application for Temporary Injunction (C.R. at 81-120) that he had “already been adequately

compensated which is why the Plaintiff (Texas) is complaining.” Partain pointed out that

“The Plaintiff petitions and motions this court to uncompensate the Defendant and to

interfere with his (Partain’s) vested property rights. Partain argued that “[T]here is no legal

authority that allows the court to do that (to uncompensate), and in fact the Tx. Const. Art.

1 Sec. 29 voids any acts of the State to do so.” Id. ¶ 6. In fact, Partain had previously filed

in his Plea To The Jurisdiction (Appellant’s Brief Appendix, Rec. 1) that the state “lacks

standing to complain” because the State of Texas “cannot be injured by having its debt

collected.” (Id. ¶ 10). Partain explained in paragraph 7 that he “collected his adequate

compensation through different methods within the restraints of US Constitution and

Texas Constitution, as he cautioned the Governor and Attorney General that he would. The

debt has been mostly collected, and should be completely collected within September of
2024.” Partain pointed out in paragraph 8 that “there are no statutory remedies or pleas in

equity available for judicial discretion to overturn a constitutional mandate or to unpay the

compensation required by the US Constitution and Texas Constitution.” Partain has been

vindicated through the parallel Hidalgo case and now the issues are moot.

Wherefore premises considered, Partain moves the Court to order the State of Texas

to return Partain’s property that it took pursuant to Travis County District Court case no.

D-1-GN-24-002560. Partain moves the Court to dismiss the underlying Travis County case

since the issues are Moot. Partain prays for all other relief he may be entitled under equity

and law.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________
Johnny Partain
7020 N 16th Street
McAllen, Texas 78504
partain@atlastechnologies.biz
956-240-1821
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
As required by TRAP 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have conferred, or made a reasonable
attempt to confer, with all other parties through Ms. Ali Thorburn, Assistant Attorney
General Litigation Division, Ali.Thorburn@oag.texas.gov, about the merits of this motion.
Ms. Thorburn did not respond.

Date: August 29, 2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
serviced by email to Ms. Ali Thorburn, Assistant Attorney General General Litigation
Division, Ali.Thorburn@oag.texas.gov on this August 29, 2025.

___________________________
Johnny Partain
7020 N 16th Street
McAllen, Texas 78504
partain@atlastechnologies.biz
956-240-1821
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 105032372
Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Filing Description: Appellant???s Emergency Motion To Dismiss The
District Court Case For Mootness with Final Judgment
Status as of 8/29/2025 2:29 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Ali Thorburn Ali.Thorburn@oag.texas.gov 8/29/2025 2:18:00 PM SENT

Johnny Partain partain@atlastechnologies.biz 8/29/2025 2:18:00 PM SENT