In Re: Jacob White Appeal from 429th Judicial District Court of Collin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Denied and Opinion Filed June 6, 2025 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-25-00625-CV IN RE JACOB WHITE, Relator Original Proceeding from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429-02359-2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Goldstein, Breedlove, and Jackson Opinion by Justice Goldstein Before the Court are pro se relator’s May 27, 2025 petition for writ of mandamus and May 28, 2025 motion for emergency relief. In his petition, relator challenges a May 19, 2025 order declaring relator a vexatious litigant, ordering relator to post security in the amount of $10,000 within 30 days, and abating the underlying suit and another proceeding until relator posts the security. Relator further contends the district clerk acted improperly by rejecting his filings without a prefiling order, that the trial court abused its discretion by abating multiple cases without individual findings or statutory authority, and the trial court violated relator’s due-process rights by finding that there was no reasonable probability of relator’s succeeding in the underlying suit without allowing relator discovery or adjudicating his constitutional claims and by declaring him a vexatious litigant based on rule 202 proceedings. To the extent relator seeks relief against the district clerk, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction. The Court may issue writs of mandamus against a trial court clerk only when necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the Court. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)–(c). Although relator also filed an interlocutory appeal, relator does not explain how the relief sought against the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction in that appeal, and we can ascertain no such reason. See In re Barnett, No. 05-25-00258-CV, 2025 WL 806231, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 13, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). To the extent relator seeks any other relief, we deny relator’s petition. Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (h), (j); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Thus, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Bautista, No. 05-25-00267-CV, 2025 WL 806233, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 13, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Integrity Mktg. Grp., LLC, No. 05-2400922-CV, 2024 WL 3770377, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 13, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). –2– We further deny relator’s emergency motion as moot. /Bonnie Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE –3–
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
