In Re Potts, 357 S.W.3d 766

Potts, a relator, was declared a vexatious litigant by the 11th District Harris County court on Feb. 16, 2011.
Relator sought to file mandamus petitions against the Harris County District Clerk, the local administrative judge, and other officials.
Judge Halbach denied relator's request for permission to file a mandamus petition.
Relator sought mandamus relief in this court to compel action by Judge Halbach and others.
This court lacks jurisdiction to compel the District Clerk to file relator's mandamus petition and dismisses that portion; other requests are addressed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction over the district clerk	Potts asserts mandamus against Daniel for filing permission.	The court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over the district clerk.	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the vexatious litigant statute violates due process	Potts claims denial of access to court due to §11.101/11.102.	Statute does not abridge due process when applied with findings and safeguards.	Statute does not violate due process.
Whether Halbach properly found officials responded appropriately to requests	Relator contends merits exist; officials refused improperly.	Officials/responders acted appropriately; no merit shown.	Halbach correctly found no merit; relief denied.

Johnson v. Sloan, 320 S.W.3d 388 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010) (vexatious-litigant statute not unconstitutional on due process grounds)
Clifton v. Walters, 308 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (statute valid when balanced against access-to-courts protections)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.2004) (mandamus relief when clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal)
In re Douglas, 333 S.W.3d 273 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (purpose of 11.101–11.102 to control docket while protecting rights)