Johnny Partain v. State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00005-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
No. 15-25-00005-CV 12/12/2025 4:17 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS

In The
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/12/2025 4:17:36 PM

Fifteenth Court Of Appeals CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

JOHNNY PARTAIN
Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

APPELLANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO ABATE APPEAL
AND REMAND CASE FOR LIMITED EVIDENTIARY
HEARING REGARDING FRAUD ON THE COURT AND
POST-JUDGMENT EVENTS

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 ABATE APPEAL
AND REMAND CASE FOR LIMITED EVIDENTIARY
HEARING REGARDING FRAUD ON THE COURT AND
POST-JUDGMENT EVENTS

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 Emergency Motion To Abate Appeal And Remand Case For

Limited Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Fraud On The Court And Post-Judgment Events,

and requests this Court to abate the appeal and remand the case for the limited purpose of

supplementing the record with a final judgment issued from a controlling parent case in
Hidalgo County District Court; and to allow the Travis County District Court to review its

own jurisdiction.

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND APPELLATE RULE BASIS

1. This Court probably doesn’t have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final

judgment signed on December 19, 2024, since the judgment was founded in fraud and

violations of Johnny Partain constitutional rights to compensation and due process. This

motion is grounded in the Court's inherent power to ensure judicial integrity, its authority

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2 to suspend rules for good cause, and the

necessity of allowing the trial court to exercise its fact-finding authority regarding matters

that occurred post-judgment.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE GRAVITY OF THE ALLEGATION

2. The judgment currently on appeal was rendered by the trial court (no actual trial)

based explicitly on the representations by the Appellee, the State of Texas via it counsel at

the time, Ali Thorburn, that a final judgment existed in a related, case no. C-0929-12-F, in

Hidalgo County 332nd District Court (Hidalgo). These representations form the very basis

for the appealed judgment. Specifically, the State represented in its First Amended Petition

and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Temporary Injunction, and Permanent

Injunction that based on its “information and belief ”, the State did not owe Johnny Partain
a debt (C.R. 10, ¶ 10-14) and that it was entitle to relief under the statute. The State

misrepresented and argued that “The [Hidalgo] Court dismissed Partain’s claims (cause no.

C-0929-12-F) with prejudice on January 4, 2021” through a final order. C.R. 10-11, ¶ 15.

The State did not actually try to litigate Appellant’s inverse condemnation claims from the

Hidalgo Court in the Travis Court; it just relied on its representations that there was a final

order against the Appellant pursuant to an illegal interlocutory order (C.R. 201-205) that

was recently vacated by the Hidalgo Court.

3. Crucially, after all appellate briefs were filed in this Appeals Court, the Hidalgo

District Court signed an actual Final Judgment [Attach as Exhibit A] that explicitly vacated

the prior interlocutory order that the State relied upon, contradicting the basis and the

jurisdiction for the judgment being appealed herein. The Hidalgo Court’s final order is

ironically the center of the instant litigation, and yet it is not in evidence. The prior

representation by the State to the Travis County District Court in case no. D-1-GN-24-

002560 (Travis) that a "final judgment" existed is now demonstrably false, not even require

fact finding. But this Appeals Court refuses to take judicial notice of its existence, hence

this motion.

4. This Hidalgo Court’s final order has been presented to this Appeals Court, ad

nauseum, through Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss The District Case On Mootness filed on August

29, 2025, Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing/Clarification And Reconsideration Of Order Denying
Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction filed on December 2, 2025, and Appellant’s Motion

To Take Judicial Notice Of Final Judgment Pursuant To TRE 201 (c) (2) filed on September 30,

2025. Appellant has challenged the Travis Court’s jurisdiction (ignored) and this Court’s

jurisdiction (ignored) to collaterally attack his final judgment in the Hidalgo Court or to

violate his rights under the Constitutions. This Court has resisted all of Appellant’s

attempts to provide proof of the State of Texas’ fraud on the Court, to address its

jurisdiction, or to acknowledge the final judgment from a primary parallel case which the

order appealed herein is based even though the Appellant has labored through all the

correct processes. This is disturbing.

5. The “matter of fraud” is not a matter of simple clerical error or an oversight; it is

evidence of a potential "unconscionable plan or scheme designed to improperly influence

the court in its decision," which constitutes a "fraud on the court" by the State of Texas

and a violation of Appellant’s rights to his property and due process. The gravity of a

state's attorney making such a misrepresentation threatens the integrity of the entire judicial

process. The reluctance of this Court to take notice of evidence of fraud through an

adjudicated fact, a final judgment, aggravates the injury to Johnny Partain. This needs to

be cured immediately.

III. ARGUMENT FOR ABATEMENT AND REMAND
6. A motion to abate must (1) identify any impediment to the continuation of the suit,

(2) identify an effective cure, and (3) ask the court to abate the suit until the defect is

corrected. Truong, 99 S.W.3d at 216.

7. The basis for this motion to abate is the undisputed finality of the subsequent order

from the Hidalgo case, which strips this Court of jurisdiction through Mootness as briefed

in Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss The District Case On Mootness filed on August 29,

2025, Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing/Clarification And Reconsideration Of Order

Denying Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction filed on December 2, 2025, and

Appellant’s Motion To Take Judicial Notice Of Final Judgment Pursuant To TRE 201 (c)

(2). Appellant hereby incorporates each of the preceding motions, as if fully stated herein.

Hidalgo Court’s final judgment is an adjudicative fact that this Court has been asked to

judicially notice as required by TRE 201 (c) which would cure the impediment, and yet this

Court refuses to take judicial notice or to give clarification to justify its own authority. The

next option to cure this impediment is to abate this appeals case and return it to the Travis

District Court for review and to test its jurisdiction.

8. Except on the Appellant’s motions, or this Court’s actions, sua sponte, to take judicial

notice of the final judgment of the Hidalgo District Court once it is brought to your

attention, an appellate court typically cannot consider evidence outside the record.
However, it must address Appellant’s claims that the judgment under review is void due to

fraud affecting the court's jurisdiction or that these courts lacks authority to act.

• Necessity of Fact-Finding: This Court cannot make an initial factual determination

as to whether the former State's attorney knowingly misrepresented the status of the

other case to acquire a judgment by fraud. That fact-finding role belongs exclusively

to the trial court. The appellate process is designed for reviewing legal errors based

on an established record, not creating a new record.

• Post-Judgment Events & Inherent Power: When a material, post-judgment event

fundamentally alters the jurisdictional landscape of the case or reveals potential

fraud, and if the Appeals Court is going to refuse to take judicial notice of a Texas

District Court’s final orders in the parent case, then abatement and remand is the

next appropriate mechanism to allow the trial court to exercise its fact-finding

function and review its jurisdiction.

• Ensuring Justice: A judgment obtained by fraud is void ab initio. To proceed with

this appeal while ignoring a direct contradiction to the judgment's foundation,

particularly when State's counsel is involved in fraud, would result in a manifest

injustice. The courts must address fraud by its own officers.
IV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Johnny Partain moves this Court to

abate this Appeal and remand the case back to the trial court for a limited evidentiary

hearing on the issue of “fraud on the court” and the effect of the subsequently entered

final judgment in case no. C-0929-12-F, in Hidalgo County 332nd District Court; and for any

and all other relief to which the Appellant may be justly entitled.

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 12, 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 12, 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: 109057558
Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief
Filing Description: Appellant???s Emergency Motion To Abate Appeal
And Remand Case For Limited Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Fraud On
The Court And Post-Judgment Event
Status as of 12/12/2025 4:45 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Johnny Partain partain@atlastechnologies.biz 12/12/2025 4:17:36 PM SENT

Kyle Argenbright Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov 12/12/2025 4:17:36 PM SENT

Chelsea Goodman chelsea.goodman@oag.texas.gov 12/12/2025 4:17:36 PM SENT