In Re Philip James Emerson, Jr. v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00043-CV

IN RE PHILIP JAMES EMERSON, JR.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Philip James Emerson, Jr., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asserting

complainants against (1) the Honorable J. Brad McCampbell, presiding judge of the 402nd

Judicial District Court of Wood County, Texas; (2) the Honorable Alfonso Fredrick Charles,

presiding judge of the 124th Judicial District Court of Gregg County, Texas, and of the Tenth

Administrative Judicial Region; (3) Susan Perez, the court coordinator of the 402nd Judicial

District Court; and (4) Terri Shepherd, the administrative assistant of the Tenth Administrative

Judicial Region. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring the relator to show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal.” In re USAA

Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)). The burden is on

relator to show he is entitled to mandamus relief. See In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315,

317 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding).

Emerson states that he was declared a vexatious litigant by the 402nd Judicial District

Court of Wood County. The vexatious-litigant order, dated August 18, 2020, states that Emerson

is “prohibited from filing, pro se, a new litigation in the 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood

County, Texas without permission of the appropriate local administrative judge” pursuant to

Section 11.102(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 11.102(a). Emerson brings this petition concerning his attempt to file three new

2
cases in the 402nd Judicial District Court. Emerson filed in the 402nd Judicial District Court

motions to vacate the vexatious litigant order or alternatively seeking permission to file his

petitions, proposed orders granting him permission to file, his petitions and a request for

temporary restraining orders, and motions to recuse both Judge McCampbell and Judge Charles.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for a writ of mandamus, is

of the opinion that the mandamus petition should be denied. Accordingly, we deny the petition

for a writ of mandamus.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 5, 2025
Date Decided: May 6, 2025

1
In light of our disposition of this petition, all pending motions in this matter are denied as moot.
3