Opinion issued January 23, 2024

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00025-CV ——————————— IN RE FELICIA NICOLE JONES, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 9, 2024, relator, Felicia Nicole Jones, a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, filed several documents with this Court, which we construe as a petition for a writ of mandamus.1

The underlying case is Felicia Nicole Jones v. Louis Vuitton, Mercedes-Benz of Houston Greenway, Toll Brothers, and Mazda North American Operations, et al., Cause No. 75486-CV, in the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the Honorable Justin R. Gilbert presiding.

As noted above, relator has been declared as a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order, entered by the 412th District Court of Brazoria County on May 19, 2014. Generally, the Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal or original proceeding in a civil matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless: (1) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing or (2) the litigant is appealing from a pre-filing order declaring the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a).

Here, relator has not provided the Court with any indication that she obtained permission from the local administrative judge prior to filing her mandamus petition.

Relator’s petition appears to request that this Court issue a writ of mandamus to “overturn[]” the pre-filing order to “give an innocent person rights to suit without [j]udicial [c]ouncil’s [l]ist hovering in one’s identity.” Along with her petition for writ of mandamus, relator also filed a “Motion Request Permission to Fil[e] a Pre[-]filing Order; Civil Practice and Remedies Code Subsection 11.102(a) [P]ermitting the [F]iling.” Relator further states that she seeks to “enforce[e] [a] Motion for Mandamus and Leave to File for permission to take this case to the judge,” and that she seeks to “[r]emove [v]exatious [l]itigant from the [n]ational [l]ist.”

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–(j),

52.8(a); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Guerra.