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

NUMBER 13-26-00377-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator R. Wayne Johnson raises

complaints regarding jurisdiction and the obstruction of justice. However, relator has been

designated as a vexatious litigant and is subject to a prefiling order. See Office of Court

Administration, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Prefiling Order, available at

https://www.txcourts.gov/judicial-data/vexatious-litigants (last updated May 15, 2026);

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101.

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code permits a court to designate a

plaintiff as a vexatious litigant if the defendant proves that: (1) in reasonable probability,

the plaintiff will not prevail in the case against the defendant; and (2) the plaintiff has a

history of pro se litigation covered by the statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 11.054; Serafine v. Crump, 691 S.W.3d 917, 920 (Tex. 2024) (per curiam); In re Casey,

589 S.W.3d 850, 852 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Generally, “a clerk of a

court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro

se, by a vexatious litigant . . . unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate

local administrative judge . . . permitting the filing.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 11.103(a); see id. §§ 11.101, 11.102(a); Reeves v. Cent. Hous. Nissan, 617 S.W.3d

676, 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, no pet.); Amrhein v. Bollinger, 593

S.W.3d 398, 404 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.).

In this case, relator did not support his petition for writ of mandamus with an order

from the appropriate local administrative judge granting relator permission to proceed with

the filing. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102. On May 13, 2026, the Clerk

of the Court advised relator by certified mail that the Court would dismiss this petition for

writ of mandamus unless relator filed such an order with the Court within ten days from

the date of his receipt of the letter. See id. §§ 11.102, 11.103, 11.1035. Relator did not

file such an order and did not otherwise respond to the Clerk’s directive.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the applicable law, and the foregoing events, is of the opinion that this original proceeding

2
should be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the
29th day of May, 2026.

3