Johnny Partain v. State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00005-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/2/2025 10:51 PM
No. 15-25-00005-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/2/2025 10:51:52 PM
In The CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Fifteenth Court Of Appeals
Clerk

JOHNNY PARTAIN
Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR
REHEARING/CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

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 MOTION FOR
REHEARING/CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT OF APPEALS:

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

cause and files his Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing/Clarification And Reconsideration Of Order

Denying Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, and respectfully moves for a rehearing,

reconsideration, and clarification of this Court's September 11, 2025, Order denying his

motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Mootness).
I. INTRODUCTION AND GROUNDS FOR REHEARING

This motion is necessary because the Court appears to have overlooked a critical

jurisdictional defect that renders this entire appeal moot: the existence of a subsequent,

final, and unchallenged district court judgment that settled the underlying controversy.

“Final judgment” means one where the trial court has rendered a final judgment and all

direct appeals have been exhausted. As subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to the Court's

authority, this issue must be reconsidered.

On July 29, 2025, Hidalgo County District Court, case no. C-0929-12-F (Hidalgo),

entered its final order stating -

“Comes now the 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. IT IS ORDERED that any

orders or judgments previously issued in this case are vacated. IT IS

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.”

See the attached ORDER DISMISSING CAUSE AS MOOT. Partain informed this Court

of the final order from Hidalgo through his Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss The District

Case On Mootness filed on August 29, 2025, and through his Appellant’s Motion To Take

Judicial Notice Of Final Judgment Pursuant To TRE 201 (c) (2) filed on September 29,

2025.
Partain originally filed the Hidalgo case on April 5, 2012. Partain sought to collect

just and adequate compensation required to be paid pursuant to US Const. Amd. 5 and Tx.

Const. Art. 1, Sec. 17 through an inverse-condemnation complaint against the State of

Texas and against other political subdivisions and officials in Hidalgo. Texas claimed

immunity to the lawsuit and generally gifted its political subdivisions and officials immunity

as well through interlocutory orders, even though there was a mandate from the 13th Court

of Appeal (see case no. 13-13-00341-CV) to take Partain to trial. Partain collected his just

and adequate compensation on the debt that was owed since the State would not litigate in

its own courts.

Thereafter, the State of Texas (Appellee), filed its First Amended Petition and

Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, and Permanent

Injunction in the Travis County District Court parallel case no. D-1-GN-24-002560 (Travis)

(see C.R. 8-20) to enjoin Partain from collecting the debt1 that he sued for in the Hidalgo

case. The State complained that pursuant to section 9.5185 of the Texas Business and

Commerce Code and based on its “information and belief ”, that the State did not owe

Johnny Partain a debt (C.R. 10, ¶ 10-14). The state complained that “Partain knew or

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

because “The [Hidalgo] Court dismissed Partain’s claims (cause no. C-0929-12-F) with

prejudice on January 4, 2021.” C.R. 10-11, ¶ 15. The State relied upon it fraud on the Travis

Court and based its Travis case on the Hidalgo case regarding the same parties and the

same debt, claiming it did not owe a debt based on interlocutory orders in Hidalgo case,
1 Neither the US Const. Amd. 5 nor the Tx. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 17, mention a debt. “Debt’ is the word the State of Texas
uses to describe its failure to pay just and adequate compensation as required by the constitutions.
which it rephrased as “information and belief.” The existence of two conflicting judgments

on the same debt between the same parties necessitates the application of preclusion

doctrines in this case for judicial efficiency and consistency, including res judicata and

collateral estoppel.

The State being intent on preventing Partain from collecting his just and adequate

compensation as required by the US and Texas constitutions 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) - which also referred to “just and

adequate compensation.” But, Partain had already collected the State’s debt to him making

relief in the Travis Court moot, making this appeals moot. See attached ORDER

DISMISSING CAUSE AS MOOT.

Specifically, Texas sought “(1) a permanent injunction enjoining Partain from

attempting to collect the alleged debt or security interest described in the fraudulent

Financing Statement and enjoining Partain from filing further fraudulent financing

statements against the State; (2) a declaration by the Court that the fraudulent Financing

Statement is void and unenforceable; (3) a release of the financing statement; (4) an order

requiring Partain to file an addendum releasing the State from Partain’s fraudulent security

interest; (5) $5,000 in statutory damages; (6) reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; (7) all

applicable pre- and post- judgment interest; (8) and any other relief in law or equity to

which the State is justly entitled. First Am. Pet.” C.R. 16; 29, ¶ 4. The State only received

partial relief on its first 3 requests to prevent Partain from collecting his just and adequate

compensation from the State. But again, Partain had already collected his just and adequate
compensation from the State making relief in the Travis Court moot, and making this

appeals moot. See attached ORDER DISMISSING CAUSE AS MOOT.

II. ARGUMENT

A. This Court Must Take Judicial Notice of the Final and Binding Hidalgo District

Court Judgment.

Appellant has properly requested that this Court take judicial notice of the July 29,

2025 Order from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County in his Appellant’s Motion To

Take Judicial Notice Of Final Judgment Pursuant To TRE 201 (c) (2) filed on September

30, 2025 in this appeals court. This order is a public record, capable of accurate and ready

determination, and thus constitutes an adjudicative fact under Texas Rule of Evidence 201.

The Order explicitly finds that Johnny Partain was compensated “just and adequate

compensation," a finding that conclusively resolves the core issue of collecting a debt from

the State of Texas in the original inverse-condemnation case, and the core issue of

collecting that same debt from the State of Texas in the Travis case. Since there are no

other live issues, the Hidalgo order undermines and moots the Travis case which relied

upon the Hidalgo case per the State of Texas’ own Travis First Amended Petition.
While appellate review is generally limited to the trial record, the court must consider

post-judgment events that bear on subject-matter jurisdiction and mootness.

B. The State's Failure to Challenge the Judgment Confirms Its Finality and

Preclusive Effect.

The State of Texas objected to the order only in this appeals Court, but critically,

failed to challenge its validity in the originating district court within the mandatory plenary

power period (approximately 30 to 105 days). This inaction is not a mere procedural detail;

it is the legal fact that transforms the order into an absolutely final, binding, and

unassailable judgment.

The State's assertion that the order is the subject of "active dispute" is misleading

and irrelevant to this appeals Court when the State voluntarily chose not to pursue the legal

mechanisms available to them in the trial court to have the judgment set aside within the

time periods established by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b. An “active dispute” is not

the same as a reasonable dispute, or even a legal dispute. Texas Rule of Evidence 201. The

judgment stands as a final adjudication.

C. The Doctrine of Mootness Eliminates This Court's Jurisdiction.

A case is moot when the controversy between the parties has ceased to exist or has

been resolved. The original injunction being appealed sought to prevent the collection of
compensation. The final judgment confirms the compensation was collected and the claim

settled. There is no UCC lien to collect against the State because it has already been

collected.

Mootness is a constitutional limitation on judicial authority, not a matter of judicial

administration or prudence. A case can become moot at any time, including on appeal.

The Texas Supreme Court has consistently held that courts must dismiss a case that is moot

for want of jurisdiction. Camarena v. Texas Employment Com’n 754 S.W.2d 151, “[I]t is

axiomatic that appellate courts do not decide cases in which no controversy exists between

the parties. City of West University Place v. Martin, 132 Tex. 354, 123 S.W.2d 638 (1939);

Texas Parks Wildlife Dept. v. Texas Assoc. of Bass Clubs, 622 S.W.2d 594 (Tex.App. —

Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Generally, a case is determined to be moot "when the issues

presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the

outcome." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed. 353 (1982), citing United

States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980),

quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969).” We

have reiterated—and described as a “fundamental rule”—that a “court may not reach the

merits if it finds a single valid basis to defeat jurisdiction.” Rattray v. City of Brownsville,

662 S.W.3d 860, 868 (Tex. 2023). The entry of the Hidalgo final judgment means there is no

live controversy for this Court to adjudicate since there is no relief the Travis Court or

Appeals Court can provide except to illegally and collaterally attack the final judgment of

the Hidalgo Court. This case is Moot.
Further, there is specific language in the Texas Constitution that removes the State’s

authority, including a court’s authority to violate a citizen’s right to just and adequate

compensation. Tx. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 29 states, “To guard against transgressions of the

high powers herein delegated, we declare that every thing in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted

out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws

contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.” Even the excuse of due

process is left wanting. Tx. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 29 voids any acts of the State of Texas to

uncompensate Partain, again making this case moot. The court must vacate any orders or

judgments previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. Heckman v.

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

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Johnny Partain respectfully prays that

this Court GRANT this motion for rehearing and reconsideration, take judicial notice of

the July 29, 2025 Order which is also attached hereto, VACATE its prior order denying the

motion to dismiss, vacate any orders or judgments previously issued and DISMISS this

appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Alternately, Johnny Partain respectfully

requests clarification on how the instant case is not Moot.

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 Mr. Kyle Argenbright, Assistant Attorney
General Litigation Division, Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov, about the merits of this
motion. There was no response.

Date: December 2, 2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
serviced by email to Mr. Kyle Argenbright, Assistant Attorney General General Litigation
Division, Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov, on this December 2, 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: 108641876
Filing Code Description: Motion for Rehearing
Filing Description: Motion For Rehearing/Clarification Dismissal For
Mootness
Status as of 12/3/2025 8:21 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Johnny Partain partain@atlastechnologies.biz 12/2/2025 10:51:52 PM SENT

Kyle Argenbright Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov 12/2/2025 10:51:52 PM SENT

Chelsea Goodman chelsea.goodman@oag.texas.gov 12/2/2025 10:51:52 PM SENT