Appeal from the 129th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2014-72421.
consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and
Ali Yazdchi, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of appeal,
attempting to challenge an order, signed by a federal
district judge on August 2, 2016, vacating that court's
prior order remanding this case back to state
court. Appellant filed a pro se motion to abate
this appeal because he claims that he filed a motion for new
trial in the state district court. We dismiss this appeal for
want of jurisdiction and dismiss this motion as moot.
court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party,
enter an order prohibiting a person from filing, pro se, a
new litigation in a court to which the order applies under
this section without permission of the appropriate local
administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) to file
the litigation if the court finds, after notice and hearing
as provided by Subchapter B, that the person is a vexatious
litigant." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
11.101(a) (West 2013). "Litigation" is defined as
"a civil action commenced, maintained, or pending in any
state or federal court." Id. § 11.001(2)
11.102(a) provides that a "vexatious litigant subject to
a prefiling order under Section 11.101 is prohibited from
filing, pro se, new litigation in a court to which the order
applies without seeking the permission of" the local
administrative judge. Id. § 11.102(a)(1) (West
2013). However, while the Clerk of this Court may file an
appeal from a prefiling order, the Clerk of this Court
"may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal,
or other claims presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant
subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the
litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local
administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a)
permitting the filing." Id. § 11.103(a),
Office of Court Administration ("OCA") of the Texas
Judicial System is required to post a list of vexatious
litigants subject to prefiling orders on its website.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
11.104(b) (West 2013). The OCA's website reflects that
appellant has been declared a vexatious litigant via a
prefiling order on three separate occasions, with the most
recent one signed on July 15, 2015, in Ali Yazdchi v.
BBVA Compass Bank, Cause No. 2015-05657 in the 151st
District Court of Harris County, Texas. See OCA List
of Vexatious Litigants Subject to Prefiling Orders under
Section 11.101, Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
(last viewed on Apr. 28, 2017); see also Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.104(b) (West 2013)
(requiring OCA to maintain and post list of vexatious
litigants on agency's website); Douglas v. Am. Title
Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 878 n.2 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st
Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (taking judicial notice of Harris
County record of vexatious litigants). Although this appeal
is not from a prefiling order, this Court has previously
affirmed an order declaring appellant a vexatious litigant.
See Yazdchi v. Jones, 499 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, pet. denied) (affirming
judgment and order declaring appellant vexatious litigant and
his claims frivolous). Thus, appellant is a vexatious
litigant subject to a prefiling order under section 11.101.
2, 2017, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his
appeal was subject to dismissal unless, within ten days of
the date of the notice, he filed proof that he had obtained
an order from the appropriate local administrative judge
permitting the filing of this appeal. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.103(a); Tex.R.App.P.
42.3(a), (c); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 11.1035(b) (noting that, if district clerk
mistakenly files litigation from vexatious litigant, court
shall immediately stay litigation and shall dismiss
litigation unless plaintiff obtains order from local
administrative judge within ten days of clerk's notice).
timely responded to the notice by referring to his motion to
abate this appeal, which he claims will provide this Court
jurisdiction after the state court signs an order on his
motion for new trial. In the alternative, appellant contends
that the prefiling orders do not apply here because they only
preclude "new litigations" and not an appeal from
trial court cause number 2014-72421, which he claims the
trial court proceeding was still pending before the prefiling
orders were signed in 2015. However, the vexatious litigant
statute clearly applies to appeals because it states that the
Clerk of this Court "may not file a[n] . . .
appeal, . . . presented, pro se, by a vexatious
litigant subject to a prefiling order" unless litigant
first obtains permission. Id. § 11.103(a)
(emphasis added), (d); see, e.g., Potts v.
Burger, No. 01-14-00909-CV, 2015 WL 222125, at *1 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 15, 2015, no pet.) (per curiam)
(mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for want of jurisdiction after
providing notice of intent to dismiss because
vexatious-litigant appellant subject to prefiling order
failed to provide order from administrative judge permitting
filing of appeal).
we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending
motions as moot.
 Although the district clerk's
letter of assignment lists the order on appeal as signed by
the trial court on April 10, 2017, the actual order attached
to that letter is signed by the federal district judge on
August 2, 2016, and it was filed as received by the state
district clerk on April 10, 2017. Because there is no
clerk's record filed in this Court, due to
appellant's claim of indigence, a review ...