in Re: R. Wayne Johnson

In The Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-12-00057-CV ______________________________

IN RE:

R. WAYNE JOHNSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator R. Wayne Johnson has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to give him relief from an alleged void order entered by the Honorable Laurine Blake, Judge of the 336th Judicial District Court of Fannin County. We deny the requested relief.

Johnson is on the State of Texas’ list of vexatious litigants. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.051–.057 (West 2002). Johnson has attached to his petition for mandamus relief a copy of the trial court’s order, which states in relevant part, ―Plaintiff Johnson did not obtain permission from a local administrative judge within ten days of the Defendant’s Notice that he is a Vexatious Litigant.‖1 The trial court then dismissed Johnson’s suit with prejudice and held him in contempt of court with a penalty of $300.00 in accordance with Section 11.101(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101(b) (West Supp. 2011).

Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992); see In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204, 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.

Johnson has provided this Court with nothing to indicate he timely obtained permission from the local administrative judge to file his suit in the trial court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 11.101–.102 (West Supp. 2011). There is nothing to indicate the trial court abused its discretion in entering the complained-of order; in fact, such dismissal would have been required if Johnson failed to provide the required permission. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(b) (West Supp. 2011).

We deny Johnson’s request for relief.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 11, 2012 Date Decided: June 12, 2012