Maurice Mitchell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice ( 2019 )

Opinion issued August 29, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00458-CV
———————————
MAURICE MITCHELL, Appellant
V.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee
On Appeal from the 133rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2016-85575
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Maurice Mitchell, has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s
“sua sponte dismissal of this cause” on either July 27, 2017, or August 29, 2018. We
dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
In the trial court proceeding, appellant filed an original petition naming the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice and several individuals as defendants. The
record filed in this Court does not show that any defendant has been served with
citation or has answered appellant’s petition. See generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 99(a),
99(b). On June 29, 2017, the trial court issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss – No
Answer Filed, stating that the case was “eligible for dismissal because no answer
had been filed” and notifying appellant what actions had to be taken by July 27,
2017, to avoid dismissal of the case. On August 2, 2018, the trial court issued a
second Notice of Intent to Dismiss – No Answer Filed. This notice also stated that
the case was “eligible for dismissal because no answer had been filed” and notified
appellant what actions had to be taken by August 29, 2018, to avoid dismissal of the
case. However, the record filed in this appeal does not include any trial court order
dismissing the case for want of prosecution or any final judgment or order disposing
of all parties and claims.
Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final
judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ne.
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). “A judgment is final
for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record,
except as necessary to carry out the decree.” Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. An
appellate court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order
2
if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d
444, 447–48 (Tex. 2011); see, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014
(authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). Because the record does not
include a final judgment or an appealable order, the Clerk of this Court notified
appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he
caused to be filed a supplemental clerk’s record that included a final judgment or an
appealable order, or filed a written response showing how this Court has jurisdiction
over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). Appellant has filed a response to the
notice; however, he has not demonstrated that we have jurisdiction over the appeal.
We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismiss as moot all pending
motions.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman, and Landau.
3