§ 11.102.Permission by Local Administrative Judge

The permission mechanism, and it is where a prefiling order is felt.

Which judge depends on the court. Permission is sought from the local administrative judge of the type of court in which the litigant intends to file — except for a justice or constitutional county court, where it is the local administrative district judge of the county.

The litigant must provide a copy of the request to all defendants named in the proposed litigation.

That is unusual and worth pausing on. People who have not been sued, and may never be, receive notice that a suit against them is proposed — and it is the litigant who must give it.

The judge may decide with or without a hearing, and may require the litigant to notify the proposed defendants of a hearing if one is held.

Permission may be granted only if the litigation has merit and has not been filed for the purposes of harassment or delay.

Both conditions must hold, and the first is a merits screen before filing — a judge assessing a proposed suit on a request rather than on a pleading, without the defendant’s answer.

Permission may be conditioned on furnishing security for the defendant’s benefit as provided in Subchapter B.

Subsection (f) narrows review sharply. A decision denying permission, or conditioning it on security, is not grounds for appeal — the litigant may only apply for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals within 30 days, and a denial of that writ is not grounds for further appeal.

Mandamus is a demanding standard, requiring a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal — which is a high bar against a decision the section itself makes discretionary.