SENRICK WILKERSON v. CITY OF DALLAS LORI ORDIWAY CALVIN JOHNSON BROOK GRONA ROBB DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant v. CITY OF DALLAS, LORI ORDIWAY, CALVIN JOHNSON, BROOK GRONA-ROBB, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUSAN HAWK, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ, Appellees

No. 05-16-00938-CV

Decided: October 20, 2016

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By letter dated September 9, 2016, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. Specifically, there does not appear to be a final judgment. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing our concern with an opportunity for appellees to file a response. Appellant filed a letter brief but appellees did not.

Generally, this Court has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A final judgment is one that disposes of all pending parties and claims. See id.

Appellant appeals from the trial court's July 24, 2016 order denying two of his pretrial motions and overruling his objections to a joint motion to declare him a vexatious litigant. On the record before this Court, it appears the motion to declare appellant a vexatious litigant remains pending in the trial court.

Appellant contends there is a final judgment and relies on the following statement in the July 24th order: “[t]he motions are DENIED and the objections are OVERRULED.” This statement does not show that a final judgment was rendered. Rather, it shows that the trial court considered and ruled on appellant's two motions and objections, nothing more.

Because the record before this Court does not contain a final judgment or other appealable interlocutory order, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE