The opinion
Opinion issued August 30, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-10-00800-CV
____________
DONALD C. JACKSON, Appellant
V.
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES, Appellee
On Appeal from the 133rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2002-51048
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appeal from an order administratively closing the
underlying trial court case. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final
judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Here,
no final judgment has been entered in this pending case. Instead, the trial court
administratively closed the case. An order administratively closing a case is not a
final judgment subject to direct appeal, because either party may move in the trial
court to reopen a case that has been administratively closed.1 See, e.g., Martin v.
Commercial Metals Co., 138 S.W.3d 619, 622 n.2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no
pet.) (case that has been administratively closed remains subject to reopening by
motion).
On June 5, 2012, the Court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating this
court’s jurisdiction within 10 days of the date of the notice. See TEX. R. APP. P.
42.3(a). Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the
appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
1
However, the denial of a motion to reopen a case that has been administratively
closed may constitute a final judgment from which a direct appeal may be taken.
Cf. Stromberger v. Law Offices of Windle Turley, P.C., No. 05-06-00841-CV, 2007
WL 2994643, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (denial of
motion to reopen an administratively closed matter has the practical effect of
dismissing the case).
2