In re Potts
399 S.W.3d 685
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Relator Patricia Potts filed two petitions for writ of mandamus seeking permission from Harris County Local Administrative Judge Ken Wise to file litigation and to obtain a protective order.
- The 11th District Court of Harris County had previously declared Potts a vexatious litigant on February 16, 2010.
- In 2013, Potts asked Judge Wise for permission to file a motion for child support enforcement and for a protective order against her mother; both requests were denied on February 5, 2013.
- Potts challenged those orders, seeking mandamus relief, arguing due process and equal protection violations as well as merit and harassment concerns.
- The court reviews mandamus standards and the Texas vexatious litigant scheme, including sections 11.101 and 11.102, and considers whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying permission.
- The court ultimately denies the petitions for writ of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vexatious litigant scheme was abused | Potts contends Wise abused discretion by denying permission | Wise acted within statutory discretion with merit/harassment concerns | No abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether due process is violated by the vexatious litigant framework | Fourteenth Amendment rights are restricted, depriving child support rights without due process | Statute does not infringe due process rights | Statute does not violate due process |
| Whether equal protection is violated by restricting filings | Vexatious-litigant restrictions are unconstitutional on equal protection grounds | Statute facially valid and not violating equal protection | Statute does not violate equal protection |
| Whether Judge Wise’s findings of lack of merit/harassment were reviewable given the record | Judge Wise erred in finding no merit and filing for harassment | Record insufficient to show error; merits/harassment findings supported by record | Unable to review without the mandamus record |
| Whether Potts could or did validly seek relief on behalf of her minor child | Relator asserts rights to file on behalf of child were violated | Relator did not establish right to file on child’s behalf; record lacking | No abuse shown; cannot conclude error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard for abuse of discretion and lack of adequate remedy by appeal)
- Potts, 357 S.W.3d 766 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (vexatious litigant statute balances access with frivolous filings)
- Johnson v. Sloan, 320 S.W.3d 388 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010) (due process considerations in vexatious-litigant context)
- Clifton v. Walters, 308 S.W.3d 94 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010) (vexatious litigant protections and access to courts)
- Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005) (equal protection challenge to vexatious-litigant statute)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding standard for abuse of discretion)