Physician Assistant Board and Margaret K. Bentley, in Her Individual and Official Capacities v. Jose A. Perez, 03-16-00840-CV

Jose A. Perez, a Texas physician assistant, had his license revoked by the Texas Physician Assistant Board in a 2014 default-based administrative order signed by Board presiding officer Margaret K. Bentley.
Perez sued the Board and Bentley (individually and officially) in 2016 seeking to quash the 2014 order and recover damages and injunctive relief under federal and state constitutional provisions, the APA, and for ultra vires actions.
Appellants (the Board and Bentley) filed a motion to have Perez declared a vexatious litigant under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 11, arguing Perez had filed multiple pro se suits that were finally determined against him and repeatedly relitigated the revocation.
The trial court denied the motion to declare Perez a vexatious litigant and denied parts of Perez’s requested relief; appellants appealed only the denial of the vexatious-litigant motion.
On appeal, the court focused on whether the statutory criteria of section 11.054(1) and (2) were met and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion given its authority to decline relief even if criteria are satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perez should be declared a vexatious litigant under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.054	Perez argued his access to courts and challenged applicability/constitutionality; he opposed vexatious designation.	Board argued Perez met statutory criteria: at least five pro se litigations finally adverse in seven years and repeated relitigation of the same issues against the same defendant(s).	Court affirmed trial court's denial of vexatious-litigant motion; no abuse of discretion.
Whether prior suits satisfy §11.054(2) (same defendant requirement)	Perez implied prior suits were related to the revocation but not against these defendants.	Board relied on Perez’s history of litigation challenging revocation/related regulatory matters.	Court noted appellants’ evidence showed prior suits were against other defendants, undermining the same-defendant requirement.
Whether trial court must declare vexatious litigant if statutory criteria met	Perez argued statutes may be unconstitutional and that denial was proper.	Board argued meeting statutory criteria requires vexatious designation and security.	Court reiterated statute gives trial courts discretion (“may”) and affirmed that denial can be proper even if criteria arguably met.

Akinwamide v. Transportation Ins. Co., 499 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (discussing chapter 11 vexatious litigant framework)
In re Douglas, 333 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion in vexatious-litigant determinations)
Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (trial court discretion to deny vexatious-litigant relief even if statutory findings could be made)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010) (plain-meaning statutory construction principles)
City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory construction guidance)
Retzlaff v. GoAmerica Commc’ns Corp., 356 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (discussion of counting litigations for §11.054(1))