In Re Veronica Rae Vara v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————

No. 08-25-00323-CV
————————————

In re Veronica Rae Vara, Relator

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Relator, Veronica Rae Vara, was declared a vexatious litigant on June 22, 2023, and is

subject to a prefiling order that requires her to obtain permission from the local administrative

judge prior to filing any new litigation relating to the division of property established in her

Original Decree of Divorce. 1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 11.101(a), 11.102(a).

1
TEXAS OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to a Prefiling Order, Veronica
Rae Vera, https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1456705/veronica-vera.pdf (last visited December 9, 2025).
On October 21, 2025, Vara filed a request with the local administrative judge seeking

permission “to file an Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the El Paso 8th Court of Appeals

of the absolutely erroneous Order Declaring Veronica a Vexatious Litigant with Prefiling Order.”

On November 19, 2025, the local administrative judge, the Honorable M. Sue Kurita, denied Vara

permission to file the petition.

On December 2, 2025, Vara filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. In her

petition, Vara requests that this Court (1) grant her relief from the local administrative judge’s order

denying her permission to file a mandamus petition in this Court and (2) grant her relief from the

order declaring her a vexatious litigant.

Generally, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must establish that the trial court committed

a clear abuse of discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate remedy by way of appeal. See In

re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Further, the

relator bears the burden of proving she is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re H.E.B. Grocery

Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840

(Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

To the extent Vara seeks relief from the trial court’s order declaring her a vexatious litigant,

after reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Vara has failed to establish

that she is entitled to mandamus relief. 2 Further, to the extent Vara seeks relief from the local

administrative judge’s order denying her permission to file a mandamus petition in this Court

2
We note that Vara has previously requested the same relief as she requests here—that we order the trial court to
vacate, or that we vacate, the trial court’s order declaring her a vexatious litigant—and that we denied her previous
requests. See In re Vara, No. 08-25-000061-CV, 2025 WL 779155, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—El Paso March 11, 2025, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Vara, No. 08-23-00190-CV, 2023 WL 4771218, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—El Paso July 26,
2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

2
challenging the trial court’s order declaring her a vexatious litigant, we conclude that, because Vara

has filed a petition challenging the trial court’s order declaring her a vexatious litigant that we have

considered in this opinion, her petition is moot.

Accordingly, we deny Vara’s request for mandamus relief with respect to her request for

relief from the trial court’s order declaring her a vexatious litigant, and we dismiss as moot her

request for mandamus relief with respect to the local administrative judge’s order denying her

request for permission to file a mandamus petition in this Court. We dismiss any pending motions

as moot.

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

December 10, 2025

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

3