In Re R. Wayne Johnson v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS

§
IN RE No. 08-25-00172-CV
§
R. WAYNE JOHNSON, AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
§
Relator. IN MANDAMUS
§

M E M O RAN D U M O PI N I O N

On June 14, 2001, the 156th Judicial District Court of Bee County, Texas issued an order

declaring Relator, R. Wayne Johnson, a vexatious litigant and prohibiting him from filing “any

more litigation in Texas courts without permission of a local administrative judge.” 1 Tex. Civ. Prac.

& Rem. Code Ann. § 11.101. Despite that order, Johnson, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition

for writ of mandamus in this Court. Because Johnson has not obtained permission to file this

original proceeding, we dismiss the petition. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.101,

11.1035.

Johnson’s petition and other filings in this proceeding are difficult to follow, but Johnson

appears to contend that, in 2007, the 171st Judicial District Court in El Paso, Texas wrongly

dismissed his civil rights lawsuit against various prison officials. According to Johnson, the

1
OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order, R. Wayne
Johnson, https://www.txcourts.gov/All_Archived_Documents/JudicialInformation/oca/pdf/vex/RWayneJohnson-
akaLegalEagle.pdf (last visited August 8, 2025).
dismissal was improper because it relied on his alleged failure to obtain permission from a local

administrative judge, as required by the vexatious litigant order entered in Bee County. He argues

that the dismissal order is void, and that our subsequent opinion affirming the dismissal was issued

without jurisdiction, because an El Paso County District Court, and this Court of Appeals, cannot

enforce a Bee County Order. See Johnson v. Sloan, 320 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010,

pet. denied).

Section 11.101(e) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that a prefiling order

entered by a district or a statutory county court “applies to each court in this state.” Tex. Civ. Prac.

& Rem. Code Ann. §11.101(e). Section 11.103 prohibits a clerk of a court from filing litigation

presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§11.103(a). But if a clerk mistakenly files the pleadings, 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.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §11.1035(b).

On June 30, 2025, we notified Johnson that his petition was filed, and on July 1, 2025, we

notified him that this proceeding would be dismissed unless, within ten days, he obtained an order

from the appropriate local administrative judge granting permission to proceed. Johnson submitted

two responses. First, he returned a copy of our June 30, 2025 notice, annotated with his own

handwritten comments. Second, he filed a document titled “Affidavit in Support of Mandamus.”

Neither of these responses provides this Court with an order from the appropriate local

administrative judge granting Johnson permission to proceed with this original proceeding.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §11.1035(b).

2
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

August 12, 2025

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

3