in Re: Jay Cooper

DENY; and Opinion Filed May 22, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00549-CV
IN RE JAY COOPER, Relator
Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 006-02636-2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Relator Jay Cooper is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101(a). Cooper appealed an October 19, 2018 judgment for possession
of property in a forcible entry and detainer appeal without first obtaining permission from the local
administrative judge as required by the prefiling order. That appeal is pending in this Court and
docketed as cause number 05-19-00064-CV. The local administrative judge denied Cooper’s
request for permission to appeal by written order on April 1, 2019. In this original proceeding,
Cooper seeks a writ of mandamus directing the local administrative judge to vacate the April 1,
2019 order and grant Cooper permission to appeal the October 18, 2018 judgment. We deny the
petition.
The denial of permission to file a litigation is not an appealable order. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(f). A vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order who is denied
permission to file a litigation may apply for a writ of mandamus within thirty days of the decision.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(f). Courts will grant mandamus relief to correct a
clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate
remedy available by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding).
The appropriate local administrative judge may grant a vexatious litigant permission to file
a litigation “only if it appears to the judge that the litigation (1) has merit; and (2) has not been
filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(d).
Here, Cooper’s three-page motion for permission to appeal includes no discussion of why the
appeal has merit and does not explain why Cooper wants to appeal the judgment. Attached to the
motion is a 98-page, single-spaced draft appellate brief and a 293–page appendix to the brief that
appears to include items that would be in a clerk’s record and reporter’s record. The draft appellate
brief includes thirty-four appellate issues, but includes no cogent arguments as to why the
judgment should be reversed. The motion and brief do not set out the scope of the judgment, do
not explain why Cooper wants to appeal the judgment, and do not discuss why the appeal has
merit.
Under this record, we conclude the local administrative judge did not abuse her discretion
by denying permission to appeal because she could not discern from Cooper’s motion and
attachments that the appeal has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or
delay. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)
(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
190549F.P05 JUSTICE
–2–