John E. Rodarte, Sr. v. Ralph Lopez ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
04-15-00012-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
7/13/2015 12:54:54 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
07/13/15 12:54:54 PM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
No. 4-15-00012-CV
____________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT SAN ANTONIO
____________________________________________________________________
JOHN E. RODARTE SR.
APPELLANT
V.
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS AND SHERIFF RALPH LOPEZ, ET AL.
APPELLEES
____________________________________________________________________
APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
____________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTH COURT:
Bexar County, Texas and Sheriff Ralph Lopez, appellees in this cause, move
the court to dismiss this appeal:
I.
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the 57th District Court of Bexar County,
Texas, which was signed on December 5, 2011. This appeal arises from Trial Court
No. 2005-CI-18884. This same trial court case was appealed to this court and
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on May 8, 2013 in Rodarte v. Bexar County, 2013
Tex. App. LEXIS 5576 (Tex. App. San Antonio May 8, 2013). That opinion was
appealed to the Texas Supreme Court and petition for review was denied on
September 27, 2013 in case number 13-0388 at Rodarte v. Bexar County, 2013 Tex.
LEXIS 812 (Tex. Sept. 27, 2013) with a motion for rehearing denied at Rodarte v.
Bexar County, 2013 Tex. LEXIS 1027 (Tex. Dec. 6, 2013).
II.
2. Therefore, appellees ask that this court dismiss this matter based on either or
both of the two legal principles below.
"Res judicata, or claims preclusion, prevents the relitigation of a claim or cause
of action that has been finally adjudicated, as well as related matters that, with the use
of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit." Barr v. Resolution Trust
Corp. ex rel Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992). It requires proof of
1
three elements: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction, (2) identity of parties or those in privity with them, and (3) a second
action based on the same claims that were raised or could have been raised in the first
action. Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). All
three elements are met here. Because Rodarte previously raised or could have raised
the same claims raised here, the previous judgment and dispositions in this court and
the Texas Supreme Court preclude its relitigation here.
"Law of the case" doctrine is defined as that principle under which questions of
law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its
subsequent stages. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593, 596
(Tex. 2006). Under the doctrine, a court of appeals is ordinarily bound by its initial
decision if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case. Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp.,
102 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Tex. 2003). The doctrine is intended to achieve uniformity of
decision as well as judicial economy and efficiency through narrowing the issues at
successive stages of litigation. Id. "The doctrine is based on public policy and is
aimed at putting an end to litigation." Id. "Application of the doctrine lies within the
discretion of the court, depending upon the particular circumstances surrounding [the]
case." Id.; see also LeBlanc v. State, 826 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th
Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd) (stating that appellate courts have discretion to depart from
"law of the case" doctrine in exceptional circumstances).
2
The doctrine has been held to apply "to implicit holdings, i.e., conclusions that
are logically necessary implications of positions articulated by the court, as well as
explicit ones." Intern. Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, No. 14-98-00324-CR, 2000 Tex.
App. LEXIS 3752, 2000 WL 729384 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] June 8, 2000,
pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (citing Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 46 F.3d
1347, 1351 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995)).
Law of the case should apply to this matter since all of the issues raised by
appellant have been addressed by this court in the previous appeal. Appellant has
presented no exceptional circumstances to depart from the law of the case doctrine
and have this case proceed. Appellant simply is unsatisfied with the previous result
and continues to abuse the court system by filing a subsequent appeal and lower court
proceedings over a matter previously decided by the trial court, this Court and the
Texas Supreme Court.
III.
Appellees would also request the Court admonish appellant to stop filing
frivolous pleadings in this court and below. His case has been finally determined and
he is wasting the Court’s resources and those of the Bexar County, Texas taxpayers’
by continually pursuing this matter.
3
IV.
THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, appellees, Bexar
County, Texas and Sheriff Ralph Lopez request that the Court enter an order
dismissing this matter and admonishing appellant.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Clarkson F. Brown
Clarkson F. Brown
State Bar No. 00798082
Assistant Criminal District Attorney
-Civil Division
101 W. Nueva, Suite 735
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030
Telephone: (210) 335-3918
Telecopier: (210) 335-2773
Attorney for Appellees
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been sent by certified mail on this the 13th day of July, 2015, to the
following:
John E. Rodarte Sr. CMRRR # 7014 1200 0001 2586 7615
TDCJ 1263270
Clements Unit
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Pro Se
/s/Clarkson F. Brown
Clarkson F. Brown
4