Mandamus Relief Denied for Vexatious Litigant Challenging Prefiling Order Denial

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-26-00075-CV, February 03, 2026.

On appeal from Unknown

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to a relator seeking to overturn a local administrative judge’s denial of permission to file new pro se litigation. As a declared vexatious litigant subject to a Chapter 11 prefiling order, the relator failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the administrative judge abused their discretion in performing their statutory gatekeeping function.

Relevance to Family Law

For family law practitioners, high-conflict litigation frequently involves self-represented parties who utilize repetitive filings to delay enforcement or harass former spouses. This case reinforces the appellate court’s deference to the “gatekeeper” function of the local administrative judge under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11. When a party in a domestic relations matter has been declared a vexatious litigant, the barrier to initiating new litigation is high, and this opinion confirms that obtaining mandamus relief to bypass an administrative denial is exceedingly difficult, providing a layer of finality and protection for your clients against serial filers.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Darrell J. Harper is a declared vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order issued pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Under such an order, the relator is prohibited from filing new pro se litigation without first obtaining written permission from the appropriate local administrative judge. On November 24, 2025, Harper sought permission from the local administrative judge in Harris County to initiate a new lawsuit. The administrative judge denied the request. Harper subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, challenging that denial and seeking to compel the lower court to allow his suit to proceed.

Issues Decided

The court decided whether a relator who has been declared a vexatious litigant is entitled to mandamus relief when a local administrative judge denies a request to file new pro se litigation under the gatekeeping provisions of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.102.

Rules Applied

The court applied Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 11.101 and 11.102. Section 11.101 authorizes the issuance of prefiling orders against litigants who have been judicially determined to be vexatious. Section 11.102(a) requires these litigants to obtain permission from the local administrative judge before filing. Under Section 11.102(f), the judge may grant permission only if the litigation has merit and is not filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. Additionally, the court applied the standard for mandamus relief, which requires a showing that the trial court (or administrative judge) clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.

Application

The court’s analysis centered on the relator’s failure to satisfy the procedural and substantive requirements for mandamus relief. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals noted that the relator was currently under a valid prefiling order, which shifted the burden to him to justify any new litigation before the local administrative judge. Because the administrative judge exercised the discretion granted under Section 11.102 to deny the filing, the relator was required to provide the appellate court with a record and legal argument demonstrating that this denial was a clear abuse of discretion. The court determined that the relator’s petition failed to provide the necessary showing of entitlement to relief, effectively upholding the administrative judge’s role as a barrier against meritless or harassing litigation.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the relator failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief following the denial of his request to file suit by the local administrative judge. The court emphasized that the relator’s status as a vexatious litigant necessitated strict adherence to the prefiling requirements of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. This holding affirms that the discretionary decisions of a local administrative judge acting as a gatekeeper under Chapter 11 are subject to high levels of appellate deference and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of error.

Practical Application

This case provides a strategic roadmap for handling “frequent filers” in family court. When a pro se litigant has a history of meritless interventions or collateral attacks on a decree, practitioners should move for a vexatious litigant declaration under Chapter 11. Once the prefiling order is entered, the burden of proof effectively shifts; the litigant must convince the local administrative judge that their claim has merit before it even reaches your client’s desk. This opinion confirms that the Fourteenth Court of Appeals will not easily interfere with a judge’s decision to keep that gate closed, significantly reducing the legal fees and emotional toll on clients involved in protracted family law disputes.

Checklists

Invoking the Vexatious Litigant Statute

• Audit the opposing party’s litigation history for at least five pro se mainstream litigations lost in the last seven years.
• Identify specific instances where the party has engaged in “tactical” filings to relitigate issues previously decided in a final divorce decree or SAPCR order.
• Draft a Motion to Declare Vexatious Litigant and for Prefiling Order under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.051.
• Request a stay of all proceedings until the motion is heard.

Enforcing the Prefiling Order

• Ensure the clerk of the court is aware of the order to prevent the “accidental” filing of new motions.
• If a new suit is filed, immediately notify the local administrative judge of the prefiling order.
• If the relator seeks mandamus relief (as in this case), focus the response on the relator’s failure to prove the “merit” of their underlying claim.

Citation

In re Darrell J. Harper, No. 14-26-00075-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~dce25226-89b9-465e-afa2-0242e724844d~~