Opinion issued August 20, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00101-CV
———————————
IN THE COMMITMENT OF RICHARD A. DUNSMORE, Appellant
On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 84023-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard A. Dunsmore filed a notice of appeal on February 11, 2019, seeking
review of the trial court’s Biennial Review Order of November 20, 2018. We dismiss
the appeal.
Dunsmore was declared a vexatious litigant and is the subject of a pre-filing
order signed on December 12, 2018 in In re Commitment of Richard A. Dunsmore,
Cause No. 84023-CV in the 412th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. See
Office of Court Administration List of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Pre-Filing
Orders under Section 11.101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, available at
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1443162/richard-dunsmore.pdf) (last viewed on
June 11, 2019; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.104(b) (requiring office
of court administration to maintain list and post list of vexatious litigants on
agency’s website); Douglas v. Am. Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.2 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris County
record of vexatious litigants).
The Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal presented by a vexatious
litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless the litigant first obtains an order
from the local administrative judge permitting the filing, or the appeal is from a
pre-filing order designating the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 11.103(a). Dunsmore is not appealing from a pre-filing order
designating him a vexatious litigant. See id. at § 11.103(d). The record contains no
permission to appeal signed by the local administrative judge.
The Court issued a notice to Dunsmore on June 13, 2019, that his appeal might
be dismissed unless he filed proof that he had previously obtained an order from
the local administrative judge permitting the filing of this appeal. No response was
filed.
2
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. Any pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Countiss.
3