Kristofer Thomas Kastner v. Harris County, Former Sheriff Tommy Thomas, and Harris County Sheriff's Deputies Saulo Aguilar, Michael LeCompte, and M. Reynaud
Opinion issued April 16, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00504-CV
———————————
KRISTOFER THOMAS KASTNER, Appellant
V.
HARRIS COUNTY, FORMER SHERIFF TOMMY THOMAS, AND
HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES SAULO AGUILAR, MICHAEL
LECOMPTE, AND M. REYNAUD, Appellees
On Appeal from the 189th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2008-45366
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Kristofer Thomas Kastner, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal
from the trial court’s order dismissing his suit against appellees, Harris County,
former Sheriff Tommy Thomas, and Harris County Sheriff’s Deputies Saulo
Aguilar, Michael Lecompte, and M. Reynaud. Because appellant has not complied
with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11, governing vexatious
litigants, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §.11.001–
.104 (West 2002 & Supp. 2012).
Pursuant to Chapter 11, “[a] court may, on its own motion or the motion of
any party, enter an order prohibiting a person from filing, in propria persona, a new
litigation in a court in this state if the court finds, after notice and hearing, that: (1)
the person is a vexatious litigant; and (2) the local administrative judge of the court
in which the person intends to file the litigation has not granted permission . . . to
file the litigation.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101(a) (West
Supp. 2012). The Office of Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System
(“OCA”) is required to maintain a list of vexatious litigants subject to pre-filing
orders. See id. § 11.104(b).
“[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,” unless
the litigant obtains an order from the local administrative judge authorizing the
filing. See id. § 11.103(a). “If the clerk mistakenly files a litigation 1 without an
1
“Litigation” includes “a civil action commenced, maintained, or pending in any
state or federal court.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.001(2)
(West Supp. 2012).
2
order from the local administrative judge, any party may file with the clerk and
serve on the plaintiff 2 and the other parties to the suit a notice stating that the
plaintiff is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order.” Id. §.11.103(b). “On
the filing of the notice, the court shall immediately stay the litigation and shall
dismiss the litigation, unless the plaintiff,” within ten days after the notice is filed,
“obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing.” Id.
The OCA’s list reflects that, on April 30, 2012, the 133rd District Court of
Harris County declared appellant a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order
in Kastner v. Sanders, No. 2011-54173 (133rd District Court of Harris County,
Tex., Apr. 30, 2012). The order prohibits appellant “from filing, in propria
persona, a new litigation in any court of this state” unless he obtains permission of
the local administrative judge. Id.
Appellees have filed a notice stating that appellant has been declared a
vexatious litigant, that he is subject to the pre-filing order issued in Sanders, and
that he has failed to obtain permission from the local administrative judge to file
the instant appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §.11.103(b).
Appellees move to dismiss the appeal. See id.
On February 5, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the
appeal was subject to dismissal unless, within ten days, he filed proof that he had
2
“‘Plaintiff’ means an individual who commences or maintains a litigation.” Id.
§.11.001(5) (emphasis added).
3
obtained an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this
appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §.11.103(a).3 Appellant’s
responses do not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Further, the Court’s
records reflect that, on March 14, 2013, the local administrative judge denied
appellant’s request for permission to continue this appeal.
Accordingly, we grant the appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal. We
dismiss all other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
3
This is not an appeal from an order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant. See id.
§.11.103(d).
4