# Donald C. Jackson v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · August 30, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3122054

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** August 30, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3122054

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3122054. Public record. Not legal advice.