Joseph E. McClain III v. Dell, Inc., Seaton Corp. D/B/A Staff Management ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-15-00141-CV
________________________
JOSEPH E. MCCLAIN III, APPELLANT
V.
DELL INC., SEATON CORP. D/B/A/ STAFF MANAGEMENT, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 200th District Court
Travis County, Texas
Trial Court No. D-1-GN-14-005063; Honorable Darlene Byrne, Presiding
May 19, 2015
ORDER
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Joseph E. McClain III, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
filed suit against Appellee, Dell Inc. four times over the same dispute.1 The first suit
resulted in summary judgment in favor of Dell on August 1, 2012. Litigation in a second
lawsuit resulted in the trial court granting Dell’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on May
1
From the clerk’s record, we discern that the underlying suits arose from a dispute after McClain
was terminated from employment with Genesis Networks Enterprises LLC. According to Dell, McClain
has never worked for Dell.
8, 2013, and after an appeal of the order was likewise dismissed, the Texas Supreme
Court dismissed McClain’s petition for review in 2014. A petition for writ of mandamus
was resolved against McClain in 2013.
In 2013, a Travis County Justice Court judge dismissed McClain’s third suit
against Dell. On December 4, 2014, McClain filed his fourth suit against Dell which
resulted in the trial court granting an Order on Dell’s Motion for Sanctions, Motion to
Dismiss, and Motion for Declaration that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant on February 3,
2015. McClain filed his pro se notice of appeal expressing “intent to appeal the trial
court’s judgment rendered on February 03, 2015.”2 The clerk’s record and reporter’s
record have both been filed. Appellant’s brief on the merits is due on or before June 10,
2015.
Currently pending before this Court are various motions and objections, the gist
of which are difficult to decipher. Specifically, McClain has filed the following
documents:
(1) Plaintiff's 1st Amended Motion for Injunctive Relief/Motion for Stay of
Judgment (filed April 15, 2015),
(2) Appellant's Objection (the gist of which challenges the trial court’s
finding that he is a vexatious litigant) (filed April 15, 2015, and May 6,
2015),
(3) Plaintiff's 2nd Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment/Motion to Dismiss
Judgment under Sec. 6 Freedom of Expression, The Citizens Participation
Act T.R.C.P.C. CH. 27. Actions Involving Certain Constitutional Rights
(three copies electronically filed May 6, 2015),
2
The case was originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals and then transferred to this
Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §
73.001 (West 2013).
2
(4) Relator's Motion for Mandatory Judicial Notice of Facts (filed May 6,
2015), and
(5) Plaintiff's 1st Amended Motion for Injunctive Relief/Motion for Stay of
Judgment (filed May 6, 2015).
Included in McClain’s filings is a proposed order that the justices of this Court issue a
Stay of Judgment, a declaration that he is a victim of identity theft committed by Dell,
damages in the amount of $837,000.00 plus a 5% employer contribution under his
benefits plan, and attorney’s fees of $6,000.00.
The Texas Constitution provides that courts of appeals shall “have original or
appellate jurisdiction, under such restrictions and regulations as may be prescribed by
law.” See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish
the procedural context within which we must exercise that jurisdiction. McClain has not
directed this Court to any constitutional provision, statute, or procedural rule
demonstrating this Court’s authority to grant the relief being requested. After a careful
review of the documents, we conclude McClain’s pending motions and objection should
be denied.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
3