Johnny Partain v. State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00005-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
No. 15-25-00005-CV 12/2/2025 10:56 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS

In The
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/2/2025 10:56:48 PM

Fifteenth Court Of Appeals CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

JOHNNY PARTAIN
Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION
OF THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION (MOOTNESS) AND REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

JOHNNY R. PARTAIN
7020 N 16th Street
McAllen, Texas 78504
956-240-1821
No. 15-25-00005-CV

In The
Fifteenth Court Of Appeals

JOHNNY PARTAIN
Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION
OF THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION (MOOTNESS) AND REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW JOHNNY PARTAIN, Appellant in the above styled and numbered

cause and files his Appellant’s Motion To Expedite Consideration Of The Motions To Dismiss For

Lack Of Jurisdiction (Mootness) And Request For Judicial Notice, and respectfully moves this

Court to expedite consideration of his previously filed Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss The

District Case On Mootness filed on August 29, 2025, Appellant’s Motion For

Rehearing/Clarification And Reconsideration Of Order Denying Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of
Jurisdiction filed on December 2, 2025, and Appellant’s Motion To Take Judicial Notice Of Final

Judgment Pursuant To TRE 201 (c) (2) filed on September 30, 2025, pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 40.1(c).

I. GROUNDS FOR EXPEDITION
Expedition of the pending jurisdictional motion is necessary in the interest of justice

and to conform with constitutional restraints excepting out of the general powers of

government any authority which would violate Partain’s right to just and adequate

compensation under Tx. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 17 and US Const. Amd. 5. The core of this

appeal involves a fundamental lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the Court is

obligated to resolve as a threshold matter. Specifically, whether the State of Texas was

legally authorized to enjoin Partain from collecting just and adequate compensation from

the State, which he already did collect pursuant to enforcing his civil rights.

The underlying controversy has been rendered moot by a subsequent, final, and

unchallenged district court judgment entered by Hidalgo County 332nd District Court, in

case no. C-0929-12-F (Hidalgo), on July 29, 2025. The Hidalgo District Court found that

“Johnny Partain has already been justly and adequately compensated by the State Of Texas

for all his claims in the above styled and numbered cause, making this case MOOT.” The

Court ordered that “any orders or judgments previously issued in this case are vacated.”

See the attached ORDER DISMISSING CAUSE AS MOOT.

Unnecessary delay in this case only prolongs the existence of conflicting court orders

causing confusion to parties who have a direct interests in the outcome of this litigation
and prejudice to the Appellant, while the State stands on Partain’s civil rights and deprives

him enjoyment of his just and adequate compensation despite strong constitutional

language guarding citizens against transgressions of the high power therein on the promise

of voidness.

II. ARGUMENT: THE APPEAL IS MOOT AS A MATTER OF LAW

The basis for expedition is the undisputed finality of the subsequent order from the

Hidalgo case, which strips this Court of jurisdiction through Mootness as briefed in

Appellant’s Motion To Dismiss The District Case On Mootness filed on August 29, 2025,

Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing/Clarification And Reconsideration Of Order Denying Motion To

Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction filed on December 2, 2025, and Appellant’s Motion To Take

Judicial Notice Of Final Judgment Pursuant To TRE 201 (c) (2). Appellant hereby incorporates

each of the preceding motions, as if fully stated herein.

A. The District Court's Judgment is a Final and Unchallenged Adjudicative Fact.

This Court has been provided with a certified copy of the July 29, 2025 Order from

Hidalgo County District Court, case no. C-0929-12-F, attached hereto. This final judgment

explicitly finds that Partain was "justly and adequately compensated" by the State of Texas,

thereby concluding the underlying inverse-condemnation claim which this instant appeals is

based on to prevent Partain from collecting same said claim. This is an adjudicative fact

that this Court has been asked to judicially notice.
B. The State's Inaction Renders the Judgment Irrefutably Final.

The State had a clear procedural path to challenge the order's validity in the

originating court during its plenary power period in the Hidalgo case. The State then

publicly declared to this Court its additional intent to file a motion to withdraw the

judgment but again has failed to take any action in the district court for over two months.

Under Texas law, the failure to timely challenge a judgment within the trial court's

plenary power period (Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b) renders that judgment

absolutely final and binding over the parties and the issues. The State's objection in this

Court cannot override the finality of a judgment in another court.

C. A Jurisdictional Defect Mandates Immediate Dismissal.

Mootness is a jurisdictional bar to the exercise of judicial power, as Texas courts

cannot issue advisory opinions. The Texas Supreme Court has consistently held that courts

must dismiss a case that is moot for want of jurisdiction. Camarena v. Texas Employment

Com’n 754 S.W.2d 151, “[I]t is axiomatic that appellate courts do not decide cases in which

no controversy exists between the parties. City of West University Place v. Martin, 132 Tex.

354, 123 S.W.2d 638 (1939); Texas Parks Wildlife Dept. v. Texas Assoc. of Bass Clubs, 622

S.W.2d 594 (Tex.App. — Austin 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Generally, a case is determined to be

moot "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable

interest in the outcome." Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed. 353
(1982), citing United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63

L.Ed.2d 479 (1980), quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d

491 (1969).” We have reiterated—and described as a “fundamental rule”—that a “court

may not reach the merits if it finds a single valid basis to defeat jurisdiction.” Rattray v. City

of Brownsville, 662 S.W.3d 860, 868 (Tex. 2023). Mootness is a jurisdictional bar to the

exercise of judicial power, as Texas courts cannot issue advisory opinions.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Johnny Partain respectfully prays that

this Court GRANT this motion to expedite, take judicial notice of the July 29, 2025 Order,

GRANT the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, vacate the trial court's injunction,

and any other order therefrom, and dismiss this appeal.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________
Johnny Partain
7020 N 16th Street
McAllen, Texas 78504
partain@atlastechnologies.biz
956-240-1821
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
As required by TRAP 10.1(a)(5), I certify that I have conferred, or made a reasonable
attempt to confer, with all other parties through Mr. Kyle Argenbright, Assistant Attorney
General Litigation Division, Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov, about the merits of this
motion. There was no response.

Date: December 2, 2025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
serviced by email to Mr. Kyle Argenbright, Assistant Attorney General General Litigation
Division, Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov, on this December 2, 2025.

___________________________
Johnny Partain
7020 N 16th Street
McAllen, Texas 78504
partain@atlastechnologies.biz
956-240-1821
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 108641890
Filing Code Description: Motion
Filing Description: Motion To Expedite
Status as of 12/3/2025 8:21 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Johnny Partain partain@atlastechnologies.biz 12/2/2025 10:56:48 PM SENT

Kyle Argenbright Kyle.Argenbright@oag.texas.gov 12/2/2025 10:56:48 PM SENT

Chelsea Goodman chelsea.goodman@oag.texas.gov 12/2/2025 10:56:48 PM SENT