In Re Lawrence Edward Thompson v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00375-CV

IN RE LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON
_____________

Original Proceeding

From the 12th District Court
Walker County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Lawrence Edward Thompson, is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling

order that requires him to obtain permission from the Local Administrative Judge (LAJ)

prior to filing any new litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101. In this

mandamus proceeding, Thompson complains that the LAJ for Walker County, Texas

abused his discretion when he denied Thompson’s request for permission to file new

litigation. See id. § 11.102(f).

Thompson filed a Motion Requesting Permission to File New Litigation, dated

June 26, 2024, and a second motion on July 5, 2024, requesting permission to file a
petition requesting depositions to investigate a potential claim or suit against Texas

Department of Criminal Justice employees. The LAJ denied the first motion on July 9,

2024. Thompson then filed a Motion Requesting Permission to File a Petition for Writ of

Mandamus because his first motion was denied. The LAJ denied the second motion

requesting permission to file new litigation and the motion requesting permission to file

a petition for writ of mandamus on August 7, 2024.

A Local Administrative Judge may grant permission to a vexatious litigant

subject to a prefiling order to file proposed litigation only if it appears to the judge that

the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.

Id. § 11.102(d). The writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or

the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy available by

appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). By statute, no appeal lies from a Local Administrative Judge’s denial of

permission to file a suit, but mandamus relief may be available. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 11.102(f). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision

so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding); In re Jones, No. 09-24-

00045-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 1743, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont March 7, 2024, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.).

In re Thompson Page 2
The burden to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief is on the relator. See

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. In his motions, Thompson requested permission to engage in

discovery to investigate a potential lawsuit. We conclude Thompson has failed to

demonstrate that he presented a meritorious lawsuit that the LAJ arbitrarily refused

permission to file. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(d); In re Jones, 2024

Tex. App. LEXIS 1743, at *2. Accordingly, we deny Thompson’s petition for writ of

mandamus.

STEVE SMITH
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
(Chief Justice Gray dissents.)
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed December 19, 2024
[OT06]

In re Thompson Page 3