Texas Appellate Court Denies Mandamus Relief for Vexatious Litigant Seeking Leave to File New Suit

In re Harper, 14-26-00120-CV, February 12, 2026.

On appeal from the 308th District Court of Harris County.

Synopsis

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus brought by a declared vexatious litigant seeking to vacate a local administrative judge’s orders that denied him leave to file new pro se litigation. The court determined that the relator failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that the administrative judge abused their discretion under the gatekeeping provisions of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11.

Relevance to Family Law

For the family law practitioner, this case underscores the durability of the “vexatious litigant” designation as a defensive tool in high-conflict matrimonial and custody litigation. When an opposing party—often a pro se former spouse—engages in a pattern of filing meritless modifications, enforcement actions, or collateral tort suits, a Chapter 11 prefiling order serves as a critical barrier. This opinion confirms that once a local administrative judge exercises their statutory discretion to block a new filing, the appellate courts are highly deferential, making it exceedingly difficult for the vexatious litigant to bypass the gatekeeper via mandamus.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Darrell J. Harper, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and placed under a prefiling order, sought to initiate new litigation pro se in Harris County. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 11.102, a person subject to such an order must obtain permission from the local administrative judge before filing. The local administrative judge for Harris County issued two separate orders, dated January 9 and January 26, 2026, denying Harper’s requests for leave to file his new suit. Harper then sought mandamus relief, asking the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to compel the administrative judge to reverse those decisions and allow the litigation to proceed.

Issues Decided

Whether a relator who has been declared a vexatious litigant is entitled to mandamus relief to overturn a local administrative judge’s decision to deny leave for new litigation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.102.

Rules Applied

The court applied the “Vexatious Litigant” statute, specifically Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 11. Section 11.101 authorizes courts to enter prefiling orders against litigants who meet the statutory criteria for vexatious conduct. Section 11.102(d) mandates that a local administrative judge may grant permission for a new filing only if the litigation appears to have merit and is not being filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. Additionally, the court applied the standard for mandamus relief, which requires the relator to show that the trial court (or in this case, the administrative judge) committed a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal.

Application

The Court of Appeals analyzed the relator’s petition through the lens of the high burden required for extraordinary relief. Under Chapter 11, the local administrative judge is tasked with a gatekeeping function intended to protect the judicial system and prospective defendants from frivolous suits. Because the relator failed to provide a record or substantive argument demonstrating that his proposed litigation met the dual requirements of Section 11.102(d)—specifically, that the suit had legal merit and was not intended for harassment—the court found no basis to conclude that the administrative judge’s denial was arbitrary or unreasonable. The court’s analysis suggests that without a clear showing of merit in the underlying proposed suit, the administrative judge’s discretion is essentially unassailable on mandamus.

Holding

The Court held that the relator failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to mandamus relief against the local administrative judge’s orders. Consequently, the petition was denied.

The court further emphasized that the statutory framework of Chapter 11 provides the local administrative judge with the authority to prevent the filing of new pro se suits by those previously designated as vexatious, and the relator here failed to show that this authority was abused.

Practical Application

In the context of family law, practitioners should view the vexatious litigant statute as a “shield of last resort” for clients being harassed by serial filers. If you successfully secure a vexatious litigant designation against an opposing party, the burden of proof effectively shifts for all future litigation. As demonstrated in this case, the local administrative judge acts as a primary filter. If the judge denies leave, the vexatious litigant faces a nearly insurmountable hurdle on appeal. This case reinforces that the 14th Court of Appeals will not easily interfere with a gatekeeper’s decision to shut down new litigation, providing your client with significant peace of mind and protection from escalating legal fees.

Checklists

Pre-Trial: Pursuing a Vexatious Litigant Designation

• Audit Litigation History: Collect at least five pro se litigations commenced by the opponent in the last seven years that were determined adversely or remained pending without merit.
• Identify Relitigation: Document if the opponent is attempting to relitigate issues of fact or law that have been finally determined in a previous suit involving the same parties.
• Draft the Motion: File a motion under Chapter 11 of the Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code and ensure it is filed within 90 days after the date the opponent files their pleading.
• Request a Prefiling Order: Explicitly ask the court to enter an order under Section 11.101 prohibiting the person from filing any new litigation pro se without leave of the local administrative judge.

Post-Order: Maintaining the Gatekeeper Defense

• Notice to the Clerk: Ensure the District Clerk has a copy of the prefiling order on file so they know to reject any new filings not accompanied by the administrative judge’s permission.
• OCA Reporting: Confirm the clerk has forwarded the order to the Office of Court Administration so the opponent appears on the statewide Vexatious Litigant List.
• Monitor Administrative Filings: If the opponent seeks leave to file under Section 11.102, prepare to provide the local administrative judge with the history of the case to demonstrate that the new suit lacks merit or is intended for harassment.

Citation

In re Harper, No. 14-26-00120-CV, 2026 WL [TBD] (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 12, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~0af3713b-1746-475c-91b9-b681e213b578~~