BLAYNE D. WILLIAMS, SR., Appellant
CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, Appellees
Appeal from the 126th District Court Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-16-006042
consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
Margaret “Meg” Poissant Justice
Blayne D. Williams, Sr., brings this appeal from the trial
court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed
by the City of Austin and the Texas Commission on Law
"appellees"). We affirm.
parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of
the underlying case, which is discussed in detail in
Williams v. City of Austin, No. 14-18-00262-CV, 2019
WL 3227513 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 18, 2019,
pet. filed). The issue upon which we decide this appeal is
well-settled. Accordingly, we write a brief memorandum
opinion no longer than necessary to advise the parties of the
court's decision and the basic reasons for it.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1, 47.4.
petition, appellant pleaded:
8. On October 6, 2016, the ALJ issued a decision and order
(D&O) granting the MSD, denying Petitioner's request
for relief, and upholding the F-5 Report. Exhibit A, attached
in its entirety and incorporated by reference.
9. On November 4, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a response to
the D&O and a requested a motion for rehearing.
10. On November 18, 2016, the ALJ denied the Petitioner's
motion for rehearing and signed the order. Exhibit B,
attached and incorporated by reference.
11. This appeal is taken from the October 6, 2016 Decision
and order from the AU, as Petitioner has exhausted all
administrative remedies available and is entitled to judicial
plea to the jurisdiction asserted because appellant's
motion for rehearing was untimely filed, appellant failed to
meet a statutory prerequisite to appeal the decision.
Accordingly, appellees argued, the trial court lacked subject
cause of action derives from a statute, the statutory
provisions are mandatory and exclusive and must be complied
with or the action is not maintainable for lack of
jurisdiction. Dolenz v. Texas State Bd. of Med.
Examiners, 899 S.W.2d 809, 811 (Tex. App.-Austin 1995,
no writ). "Statutory prerequisites to a suit . . . are
jurisdictional requirements in all suits against a
governmental entity." Tex. Gov't Code §
311.034; see also Jones v. State Bd. of Educator
Certification, 315 S.W.3d 237, 243 (Tex. App.-Austin
2010, pet. denied) ("An appeal from an administrative
agency is not a matter of right, it is set out by statute and
must be strictly complied with in order to vest the district
court with jurisdiction.").
proceeding such as this one, to contest information in an
F-5, is a contested case under Chapter 2001 of the Government
Code. See Tex. Occ. Code § 1701.4525(a). A
timely motion for rehearing is a prerequisite to an action
for judicial review in a contested case. See Tex.
Gov't Code § 2001.145(a). ("A timely motion for
rehearing is a prerequisite to an appeal in a contested
case"); see also Fisher v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of
Tex., 549 S.W.3d 178, 180 (Tex. App.-Austin 2018, no
pet.) ("A motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional
prerequisite to filing a suit for judicial review of an
administrative decision in a contested-case hearing.").
Failure to file a timely motion for rehearing results in the
trial court lacking jurisdiction over a suit for judicial
review of an administrative decision in a contested case.
See Fisher, 549 S.W.3d at 180-83 (affirming a trial
court's granting of a plea to the jurisdiction in a
situation in which a party filed a motion for rehearing under
Tex. Gov't Code § 2001.146 one day after the
timely, "[a] motion for rehearing in a contested case
must be filed by a party not later than the 25th day after
the date the decision or order that is the subject of the
motion is signed, unless the time for filing the motion has
been extended." Tex. Gov't Code § 2001.146(a).
The record does not reflect, and ...