In Re Darrell J. Harper v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued May 28, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00542-CV
———————————
IN RE DARRELL J. HARPER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Darrell J. Harper, a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order, filed

a pro se petition for writ of mandamus challenging the May 13, 2026 order denying

relator’s request to “file a new lawsuit in the District Courts of Harris County.”1 In

his petition for writ of mandamus, relator requested that the Court issue a writ of

1
The respondent is the Honorable Gloria Lopez, the Local Administrative District
Judge of Harris County, Texas.
mandamus and direct the local administrative judge “to vacate the May 13, 2026

order.”

Generally, the Clerk of this Court may not file an appeal or original

proceeding in a civil matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing

order unless: (1) the litigant first obtains an order from the local administrative judge

permitting the filing or (2) the litigant is appealing from a pre-filing order declaring

the person a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a).

However, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order “may apply for a writ of

mandamus” to challenge an order “denying a litigant permission to file a litigation.”

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102(f).

Here, relator challenges the May 13, 2026 order of the Honorable Gloria

Lopez, the Local Administrative District Judge, denying relator’s request to “file a

new lawsuit in . . . the District Courts of Harris County.” In the order, the local

administrative judge stated that relator requested “permission to file litigation

against the State of Texas, Bayview Solutions LLC, and World Finance

Corporation.” The order further stated that relator “allege[d] that Bayview

Solutions[] LLC (acting on behalf of World Finance Corporation) pursued an

underlying matter against [relator] in a Harris Couty Justice Court, precinct 3-2,

Cause No. 263200046499.” Relator’s “proposed new lawsuit relate[d] to and [arose]

from events and conduct alleged to have occurred in connection with that case.”

2
In denying relator permission to “file a new lawsuit” in Harris County District

Court, the local administrative judge concluded that relator’s “proposed suit d[id]

not have merit and [was] brought for purposes of harassment.” We note however,

that the order of the local administrative judge also stated that relator “ha[d] the right

to appeal the Justice Court judgment rendered against him” in the above-referenced

cause.

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to

establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief, and therefore, the Court denies

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.

3