NUMBER 13-13-00154-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, Appellant,
v.
FBI-MR. TODD C. RATCLIFFE, ET AL., Appellees.
On appeal from the 156th District Court
of Bee County, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, Barry Wayne Minnfee, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order
issued by the trial court. Appellant is on the list of vexatious litigants compiled by the
Office of the Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System, and he has been
prohibited from filing any more litigation in Texas courts without permission of a local
administrative judge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.104 (West Supp.
2011); see generally http://www.txcourts.gov/oca/vexatiouslitigants.asp.
The Clerk of this Court notified appellant that he is on the list of vexatious
litigants and that he has been prohibited from filing any more litigation in Texas courts
without permission of a local administrative judge. Appellant was advised that unless
he has obtained the permission of the local administrative judge and provided a copy
of such order permitting the filing of this appeal within ten days from the date of
receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s directive and the record before the
Court fails to show that appellant obtained the permission of the local administrative
judge to file this appeal. With limited exceptions not applicable to this case, "a clerk of
a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented by
a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant
obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing." Id. §
11.103(a) (West Supp. 2011).
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to
correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
30th day of May, 2013.
2