Jay Sandon Cooper v. Judge Paul McNulty
05-15-00801-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Cooper was convicted of speeding in Plano Municipal Court, appealed, and filed a mandamus in the Collin County district court challenging an order to produce financial records tied to his indigency claim.
- The district clerk contested Cooper’s affidavit of indigency; the court sustained the contest and ordered Cooper to pay filing fees or have the case dismissed for costs.
- The district court sua sponte set a hearing to consider whether Cooper (and his wife) qualified as vexatious litigants under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 11, based on numerous pro se filings adjudicated adversely to him.
- At the vexatious-litigant hearing the clerk introduced court records of Cooper’s prior pro se cases; Cooper testified and disputed the characterization of his filings.
- The trial court declared Cooper a vexatious litigant and issued a pre-filing order requiring local administrative-judge permission before Cooper could file new pro se litigation; Cooper appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cooper) | Defendant's Argument (Judge/Clerk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may initiate a vexatious-litigant proceeding sua sponte | Statute allows only a "moving defendant" to initiate; court lacked authority to act on its own | Section 11.101 expressly permits a court to act "on its own motion"; court has inherent docket-control power | Court may act sua sponte; trial court did not err |
| Whether a mandamus originating from a criminal matter is a "civil action" for chapter 11 purposes | Mandamus arose from a criminal matter so chapter 11 doesn't apply | An original mandamus in trial court is a civil action; statute's definitions encompass mandamus relators | Mandamus is a civil action; chapter 11 applies |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Cooper is unlikely to prevail (no reasonable probability) | Dismissal for failure to pay fees does not prove no probability of success | Trial court relied on two independent bases (dismissal for fees and mootness); at least one unchallenged basis supports finding | Finding that no reasonable probability exists is supported; issue rejected |
| Constitutionality / due process / equal protection challenges to chapter 11 | Chapter 11 impermissibly restricts access to courts and violates due process/equal protection | Statute targets frivolous litigation, balances access against public interest, requires findings before restricting filings | Challenges rejected; statute upheld as not unconstitutional as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1991) (original mandamus in trial court is a civil action)
- Hogan v. Turland, 428 S.W.2d 316 (Tex. 1968) (mandamus relating to criminal proceedings is civil in nature)
- In re Douglas, 333 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (statute authorizes courts to raise vexatious-litigant issue on own motion)
- Retzlaff v. GoAmerica Commc’ns Corp., 356 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (chapter 11 balances access to courts and protection from frivolous litigation)
- Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (purpose of vexatious-litigant statute and permissible restrictions)
- Harris v. Rose, 204 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (standard of review for vexatious-litigant declaration)