CAUSE NO. 2009-17355
VICTOR DEL RIO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR §
Plaintiff, § §
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS§
CITY OF HOUSTON, HARRIS § COUNTY, AND TEXAS, §
§ Defendants. § 157 JUDICIAL DISTRICTth
MOTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
JANET L. HORTON, AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT:
Defendants Spring Independent School District (“SISD” or “District”), Janet L. Horton, and
Christopher Gilbert (hereinafter “Defendants”) move to have Plaintiff Victor Del Rio declared a
vexatious litigant under TEX. CIV. PRAC.& REM. CODE § 11.051 et seq., and would respectfully show
the Court as follows:
I. VEXATIOUS LITIGANT STANDARD
The standard for finding a plaintiff to be a vexatious litigant is set out at Section 11.054 of
the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, and states as follows:
A court may find a plaintiff a vexatious litigant if the defendant shows that there is not areasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail in the litigation against the defendant andthat:(1) the plaintiff, in the seven-year period immediately preceding the date the defendant
makes the motion under Section 11.051, has commenced, prosecuted, or maintainedin propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that havebeen:(A) finally determined adversely to the plaintiff;(B) permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought
to trial or hearing; or
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 1
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Filed 09 July 13 P4:49Loren Jackson - District ClerkHarris CountyED101J015455935By: Wanda Chambers
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
(C) determined by a trial or appellate court to be frivolous or groundless understate or federal laws or rules of procedure;
(2) after a litigation has been finally determined against the plaintiff, the plaintiffrepeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either:(A) the validity of the determination against the same defendant as to whom the
litigation was finally determined; or(B) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law
determined or concluded by the final determination against the samedefendant as to whom the litigation was finally determined; or
(3) the plaintiff has previously been declared to be a vexatious litigant by a state orfederal court in an action or proceeding based on the same or substantially similarfacts, transition, or occurrence.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.054. The Defendants specifically move under subsection (2),
and will show that this lawsuit represents an attempt by Victor Del Rio to relitigate in propria
persona both the validity of a prior determination and the same causes of action and/or claims - as
well as the same issues of fact or law – that were determined or concluded by the final determination
against the Defendants.
II.BACKGROUND FACTS
A. The Special Education Dispute
Plaintiff Victor Del Rio has been engaged in a running dispute with the Spring Independent
School District for a number of years over the education of his son (“N.D.”), who is a special
education student in the District. In 2007, Plaintiff filed for a due process hearing under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). A hearing was held
on June 20, 2007, and on August 24, 2007, State Special Education Hearing Officer Olivia B. Ruiz
issued a decision finding for the District and against the Plaintiff on all issues. (See Final Decision
of the Hearing Officer, attached as Exhibit A.) Plaintiff appealed the Final Decision to federal court
on November 19, 2007. (See Original Complaint, attached as Exhibit B.) However, on January 28,
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 2
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
2008, Del Rio informed the Court by letter that he wanted to dismiss his case. (See Exhibit C.) On
February 1, 2008, the Court granted his request and dismissed the case. (See Exhibit D.)
Plaintiff has twice attempted to reopen his IDEA case. On August 18, 2008, he filed an
“Emergency Motion to Reopen” (see Exhibit E), in which he noted that he had already filed another
lawsuit in federal court (the “Werlein Lawsuit,” to be discussed below). As he did in the Werlein
lawsuit, Del Rio made an outrageous allegation that a conspiracy existed between his ex-wife
(Tracey Del Rio) and Denise Drexler, the Executive Director of Special Education at Spring ISD:
02. I now realize that Tracey has been working secretly with Denise Drexler, tointentional debilitate him, though Abuse and Denial of his Free AppropriateEducation, for a Social Security Disability Check after Child Support ends andrevenue for S.I.S.D. until he eventually graduates at age 25.
(Id. at p. 2.) Del Rio alleged that a conspiracy exists to harass and retaliation against him by
burglarizing his home, keeping him under surveillance, trying to abduct him and “possibly
murdered” him while he slept. (Id.) The Court denied Del Rio’s first request that the case be
reopened on September 2, 2008. (See Exhibit F.)
On January 16, 2009, Del Rio made his second attempt to reopen his IDEA case, filing a
“Motion for Leave to Reopen and File Amended Complaints.” (See Exhibit G.) At the same time,
Del Rio filed an Amended Complaint (see Exhibit H), which listed as Defendants “Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott et al” and seemed to completely abandon his IDEA 2004 and ADA claims from
his Original Complaint, instead asserting a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”). He also filed a “Motion to File RICO Case Statement” at the same
time. (See Exhibit I.) Magistrate Judge John Froeschner set a hearing for February 6, 2008 to
consider whether to reopen the case or not, but after Del Rio failed to attend the hearing, the
Magistrate denied permission to reopen the case. (See Exhibit J.)
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 3
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
B. Del Rio v. Drexler (the Werlein Lawsuit) - Round One.
On July 30, 2008, Del Rio filed a second lawsuit in federal court (Exhibit K), against Denise
Drexler and Tracey Del Rio, which was assigned to United States District Judge Ewing Werlein
(hereinafter the “Werlein lawsuit”). The lawsuit makes the same outrageous factual conspiracy
claim that Del Rio would assert a month later when he first tried to reopen his IDEA lawsuit – that
Drexler and Tracey Del Rio were trying to debilitate Del Rio’s son to gain Social Security disability
payments for Tracey Del Rio and special education revenue for Spring ISD – and then appears to
assert causes of action for cruel and unusual punishment, “torment”, denial of right to medical care,
fraud, denial of access to courts, and warrantless surveillance. On October 23, 2008, Del Rio filed
an Amended Complaint (Exhibit L) in which he only named Tracey Del Rio and her attorney,
Elizabeth Pagel. Although it is very hard to tell what the causes of action are in the Amended
Complaint, it is very much a collateral attack on the ongoing family court and custody proceedings
and on the educational services bring provided to Del Rio’s son.
Dismissing Denise Drexler from the Werlein lawsuit: After Del Rio filed the Amended
Complaint that omitted Denise Drexler from the caption of the lawsuit and dropped all factual
allegations against her, counsel for Defendant Drexler contacted Del Rio and inquired whether he
had intended to drop Defendant Drexler from the lawsuit by omitting her from the Amended
Complaint. Although Del Rio had claimed in the past that Mr. Gilbert threatened or coerced him
into dropping the lawsuit, the entire dialog was done by email (Exhibit M); at no time did Mr.
Gilbert and Mr. Del Rio talk by phone about the dismissal. (See Affidavit of Christopher B. Gilbert,1
attached as Exhibit N.) As can be seen from Exhibits M & N, at no time did Mr. Gilbert threaten
Mr. Del Rio did leave Mr. Gilbert one voicemail over a weekend, which is mentioned in Mr. Gilbert’s1
November 3, 2008 email. However, at no time did Mr. Gilbert actually talk to Mr. Del Rio, so the email are a complete
record of what Mr. Gilbert said to Mr. Del Rio. (Ex. N.)
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 4
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
or coerce Mr. Del Rio. Although Mr. Del Rio kept trying to get the District to agree to somehow
help him get custody of his child back, Mr. Gilbert simply repeated that he was not authorized to
engage in settlement talks with Mr. Del Rio and could not help him with his custody issues even if
he was, since neither Spring ISD nor Ms. Drexler had any authority over the custody of Del Rio’s
son - all Mr. Gilbert was trying to do was ascertain whether Mr. Del Rio intended to drop Denise
Drexler from the lawsuit by omitting her from the Amended Complaint. Mr. Del Rio finally agreed
to dismiss Ms. Drexler; the parties filed their Stipulation of Dismissal on November 6, 2008 (Exhibit
O), and Judge Werlein granted it on November 13, 2008. (Exhibit P.)
The “Final” Dismissal of the Werlein Lawsuit: On December 2, 2008, in the wake of the
dismissal of Denise Drexler from the lawsuit, Del Rio filed a “Petition for Judicial Review” (Exhibit
Q), which made it very clear that Del Rio was challenging the Final Order entered in his state court
custody dispute on November 3, 2008. Accordingly, on December 12, 2008, Judge Werlein
dismissed the lawsuit, finding that he did not have jurisdiction to hear a collateral attack on a state
court order. (Exhibit R.)
C. The State Court Custody Litigation
On October 30, 2008, a hearing was held before Judge Doug Warne in the 311 Judicialth
District Court in Harris County, which has continuing jurisdiction over the custody of the Del Rios’
son under TEX. FAMILY CODE § 152.202. (Exhibit S.) Despite being properly notified about the
hearing, Del Rio failed to attend. (Id.) On November 3, 2008, Judge Warne entered the Final Order,
which in essence deprived Del Rio of all visitation rights unless agreed to by Tracey Del Rio, and
vested exclusive power in Tracey Del Rio to make educational and legal decisions for their son. (Id.)
The Final Orders were not properly appealed, and on January 22, 2009 Judge Warne dismissed the2
Del Rio did file a habeas corpus action in the First Court of Appeals on December 18, 2008. (Exhibit T.) 2
However, that action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on March 26, 2009. (Id.)
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 5
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
case. (Exhibit U.) By law, this lawsuit is the Suit Affecting Parent Child Relationship (“SAPCR”)
case for the Del Rios and their son. See TEX. FAMILY CODE § 155.001 to § 155.003.
D. Del Rio’s Attacks on the Family Court Order
Since Judge Warne entered the Final Order limiting Del Rio’s rights over his son, Del Rio
has filed numerous lawsuits all over the country, naming as Defendants anyone and everyone who
has been involved with his son. An Appendix summarizing his lawsuits is attached as Appendix A.
He filed his first lawsuit against Judge Warne himself on December 3, 2008 in – for some
inexplicable reason – the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (See
Exhibit V.) He then attempted to remove his family court action from Harris County to the federal3
district court in the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. (Exhibit X.) After the Northern District
transferred it to the Southern District (Exhibit Y), it was dismissed by United States District Judge
Hoyt on February 11, 2009. (Exhibit Z.)
Del Rio then attempted to file an original action in the United States Supreme Court on or
about February 14, 2009, naming as Defendants Tracey Del Rio, Dr. Gurney Pearsall, Dr. Douglas
Lacour, Meyer Center at Texas Children’s Hospital, Denise Drexler, Elizabeth Pagel, Janet Horton,
Christopher Gilbert, Jeffrey Horner, Rep. Debbie Riddle, Hon. Doug Warne & US Senator John
Cornyn. (Exhibit AA.) Dr. Pearsall and Dr. Lacour are doctors at Texas Children’s Hospital who
have treated Del Rio’s son in the past; Elizabeth Pagel is Tracey Del Rio’s lawyer; Janet Horton and
Christopher Gilbert are Denise Drexler’s lawyers; Jeffrey Horner was the former section head for
Ms. Horton and Mr. Gilbert at their old law firm (Defendants have no idea why he was named);
Debbie Riddle is the State Representative for the District in which the Defendants assume Del Rio
lives. It is the understanding of Mr. Gilbert from a conversation that he had with the Supreme Court
The Magistrate in the Pennsylvania litigation recently entered a Recommendation to Dismiss the case for Want3
of Prosecution; that recommendation is currently pending. (Exhibit W.)
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 6
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
clerk’s office that the Court rejected Del Rio’s filing as improper without ever docketing the case.
(Ex. N.)
Shortly after learning that his Supreme Court lawsuit had been rejected, Del Rio filed an
“Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus” in federal court in the Southern
District of Texas on February 24, 2009 and requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Exhibit BB.) Judge Hughes denied Mr. Del Rio in forma pauperis status on February 27, 2009,4
ruling that Del Rio had already had his day in court on the issues of his custody and the education
of his son. (Exhibit CC.) Judge Hughes warned Del Rio that he could not file any more lawsuits
in the Southern District without first paying costs. (Id.)
Del Rio next filed a case on March 3, 2009 in the Court of Federal Claims in Washington
D.C (the “CFC case”) against the “USA.” (Exhibit DD.) The CFC case, to the best of the
Defendants’ knowledge, does not formally name Spring ISD, Denise Drexler, Janet Horton or
Christopher Gilbert as defendants. However, the undersigned counsel for the Defendants spoke
briefly with the Department of Justice attorney who is representing the USA in the CFC case, and
he confirmed that it contains the same conspiracy allegations as all of the Plaintiff’s other cases.
(Ex. N.) According to PACER, this case was dismissed June 26, 2009 for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.
On March 16, 2009, Del Rio initiated a lawsuit in state court in Travis County, Texas on
under Docket No. D-1-GN-09-000882 against the following Defendants: Denise Drexler, Doug
Craig Warne, Ellen Shelton, Tracey Del Rio, Lois Hill, Kim Carter, Don Carter, Joan Hill, Sara
Stopoli, Kirsten Omelan, Cornelius Phelps, Olivia Ruiz, Dr. Douglas LaCour, Dr. Isabella Iovino,
Dr. Sherry Vinson-Sellers, Mayson Mead-Planck, Brenda Evans Hart, Dr. Gurney Pearsall MD,
The actual “Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus” is restricted on the PACER system4
and Defendants therefore do not have a copy of it.
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 7
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Brenda Caeser & Stephanie Hightower, Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos, Harris County
District Judge Ed Emmett, Harris County Constables Office, Harris County Sheriffs Department, and
Ralph Draper. Denise Drexler, Sara Stopoli, Kirsten Omelan, Cornelius Phelps, and Ralph Draper.
(Exhibit EE.) The lawsuit asserts claims under RICO, as well as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, asserted pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division on April 1, 2009, and transferred to the Southern District of Texas
on May 15, 2009. This lawsuit shall be referred to as the “Western District lawsuit.”
On March 19, 2009, Del Rio filed this lawsuit in state court in Harris County, Texas, making
allegations very similar to those in his Western District lawsuit. Although captioned “Del Rio v.
City of Houston, Harris County, and State of Texas,” the Petition itself lists as Defendants the
following: Spring ISD, 1 Court of Appeals, Family Court 311 Harris County, Office of thest
Attorney General, Office of the Harris County District Attorney, State Bar of Texas, Texas Medical
Board, Texas Education Agency, Region IV Education Service Center, Texas Children’s Protective
Services, Meyer Center at Texas Children’s Hospital, including Dr. Douglas LaCour, Baylor College
of Medicine, Dr. Fernando Scaglia, Cole Speech and Language Center, Dr. Balbir V. Singh, Dr.
Lawrence D. Ginsberg MD, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Attorneys Janet L. Horton and Christopher
Gilbert, Baker Hughes Business Support Services (BHI), A.D.T. (ADT), Comcast, Sprint, Verizon
Wireless, Gregory & Gregory Family Law, “and more not listed here.” Again, the theme of the
lawsuit is the alleged conspiracy between Tracey Del Rio and Denise Drexler (who curiously is not
named as a Defendant): the first sentence of the fact section reads “Since 1996, Tracey Del Rio and
her immediate family … have been conspiring to debilitate Nicholas Del Rio into mental retardation
for personal gain in collusion with Denise Drexler of Spring ISD….” He claims that the Defendants
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 8
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
have engaged in “tortious predicate acts” and seems to be asserting a claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
After the Travis County lawsuit was removed to federal court in the Western District, Del
Rio apparently decided to abandon Texas altogether and head east. On April 7, 2009, Del Rio filed
a complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia (which was not officially filed until
May 4, 2009, the same day that it was posted to PACER). (Exhibit FF.) The suit was filed against
the exact same list of Defendants as the Travis County/Western District lawsuit and asserts the same5
RICO conspiracy claims as that lawsuit. (Id.)
The very next day, on April 8, 2009, Del Rio filed a second lawsuit in the District Court for
the District of Columbia (which again does not appear to have been officially posted until May 4,
2009, the same day that it was posted to PACER). (Exhibit GG.) The Complaint filed in this
lawsuit actually is the Original Petition that Del Rio filed in Travis County and that was removed
to the Western District – including the fact that the document actually has “Travis County District
Court, 201 Judicial District” typed at the top of the document, which the Plaintiff then crossed outst
and wrote “In the United States District Court, District of Columbia” over by hand. It asserts the6
same claims against the same defendants as the Western District lawsuit and – for the most part –
the first District of Columbia lawsuit. Both District of Columbia lawsuits were transferred sua
sponte to the Southern District of Texas on May 4, 2009. (Exhibit HH.)
Denise Drexler, Doug Craig Warne, Ellen Shelton, Tracey Del Rio, Lois Hill, Kim Carter, Don Carter, Joan5
Hill, Sara Stopoli, Kirsten Omelan, Cornelius Phelps, Olivia Ruiz, Dr. Douglas LaCour, Dr. Isabella Iovino, Dr. Sherry
Vinson-Sellers, Mayson Mead-Planck, Brenda Evans Hart, Dr. Gurney Pearsall MD, Brenda Caeser & Stephanie
Hightower, Harris County District Attorney Pat Lykos, Harris County District Judge Ed Emmett, Harris County
Constables Office, Harris County Sheriffs Department, and Ralph Draper. Denise Drexler, Sara Stopoli, Kirsten Omelan,
Cornelius Phelps, and Ralph Draper.
The only difference between the Original Petition filed in Travis County, and the Original Complaint filed in6
Cause No. 1:09-cv-00808 in the District of Columbia, is that District of Columbia pleading adds Attorney General Greg
Abbott as the first named Defendant.
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 9
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
On April 10, 2009, Del Rio filed an “Emergency Petition for Writs of Mandamus and
Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs” directly with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
(Exhibit I I.) The Petition seeks custody of his son and asserts the same RICO conspiracy allegations
as all of his other lawsuits. It names as “Defendants” the same list of Defendants as the Travis
County/Western District lawsuit and the two District of Columbia case (minus Greg Abbott). The
Court denied all writs on June 3, 2009. (Exhibit JJ.)
Lastly, on May 4, 2009, Plaintiff attempted to reopen the Werlein lawsuit in the Southern
District (Cause No. 08-CV-2366) by filing two new pleadings entitled “Petition for Emergency
Relief - Custody” (Exhibit KK) and “Amended Complaint.” (Exhibit LL.) As can be seen from the
two pleadings, the Defendants he seeks to sue in the reopened Southern District lawsuit are all
Defendants in this lawsuit (with the exception of the United States.) In addition, the claims he seeks
to assert in the reopened Southern District lawsuit are roughly analogous to the claims he is asserting
here (considering that they all arise from the alleged conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of the custody
of his son). Judge Werlein rejected the attempt to reopen the case on May 14, 2009. (Exhibit MM.)
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 10
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
III.ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Although Del Rio’s thirteen lawsuits (depending on how you count them) assert different
causes of action against a host of different Defendants, at heart each one is a direct challenge to the
custody order entered by Judge Doug Warne on November 3, 2008 in the SAPCR lawsuit, and most
feature a secondary challenge to the education of the Plaintiff’s son by Spring ISD. This lawsuit
specifically seeks custody of Nicholas as relief (Original Petition, ¶ 6); and complains about his
education at Spring ISD (see, e.,g., Amended Petition, Section C, Count 1). This lawsuit is factually
based on the same outrageous allegation that a conspiracy exists between his ex-wife (Tracey Del
Rio) and Denise Drexler, the Executive Director of Special Education at Spring ISD that shows up
in pretty much all of Del Rio’s lawsuits:
Since 1996, Tracey Del Rio and her immediate family of Lois Hill, Don Carter, KimCarter, and Joan Hill, have been conspiring to debilitate Nicholas Del Rio into mentalretardation for personal gain in collusion with Denise Drexler of Spring ISD, FamilyCourt 311, Dr. Gurney Pearsall, and others as necessary to continue their success andsubterfuge as an 'association in fact' enterprise.
(Original Petition, ¶ 4.) The alleged financial reason for this conspiracy is more fully spelled out in
the first lawsuit Del Rio filed against Denise Drexler in Judge Werlein’s court:
Tracey Del Rio and Denise Drexler collaborated with others to almost kill N. anddebilitate him with brain damage ... by drowning him at a YMCA located in Spring,Tx. They conspired to:01 secure disability income for Tracey after child support payment ended when N.turned 18 years of age,02 ensure special education funding for SISD until they could no longer detain N. forgraduation at 25 years of age, 03 remove any risk for providing N. his legal right to an IDEA 2004 compliant FreeAppropriate Public Education....
(Exhibit K, p. 3 of 10.)
While the Defendants can understand that Mr. Del Rio is upset about losing custody of his
son, the manner in which he has gone about “challenging” that decision is reprehensible and cannot
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 11
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
be allowed to continue. Mr. Del Rio has filed lawsuit after lawsuit against the same people, raising
the same claims, many of which are filed in obviously improper courts (three different federal courts
have had to transfer Del Rio’s cases back to the Southern District of Texas – two of those courts
acting sua sponte – and the Court of Federal Claims in Washington D.C dismissed its case for want
of subject matter jurisdiction). Del Rio then rarely pursues or cooperates in any of his lawsuits. The
magistrate in the Pennsylvania case has recommended that that case be dismissed for want of
prosecution, noting that Del Rio failed to respond to show cause request. (Ex. W.) The Southern
District refused to reopen Del Rio’s case at Del Rio’s request when Del Rio failed to show up for
a hearing on his own motion. (Ex. J.) In this case, Del Rio refused to attend his own deposition,
leading to a Motion to Compel that is currently pending. In addition, Del Rio has sent threatening
emails to the Spring ISD Defendants, accused them of crazy crimes, such as “treason” and “social
eugenics,” and accused them of being “white supremacists” and belonging to organizations such as
“Project Paperclip” (which, according to Wikipedia.com, was the name of the effort by the United
States to recruit German scientists after the fall of Nazi Germany). All because they “refused” to
cooperate with Del Rio in getting custody of his son back – which the Spring ISD Defendants have
repeatedly told Del Rio they have no power to do.
Defendants Spring Independent School District, Janet L. Horton, and Christopher Gilbert
assert that Plaintiff Victor Del Rio meets the definition of a vexatious litigant under TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE § 11.054, as follows:
A. No Reasonable Probability that Del Rio Will Prevail in this Litigation
The Defendants assert that there is not a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail
in the litigation against the Defendants for several reasons. First of all, this case is an impermissible
collateral attack on Judge Warne’s November 3, 2008 Final Order in the custody case. As such, it
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 12
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
is little different than the case of Henderson v. Chambers, 208 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.App.–Austin 2006,
no pet.), in which a wife brought suit claiming that her ex-husband and his attorneys had conspired
against her to defraud her of her community property interests in various marriage assets. The Court
dismissed the suit in the grounds that the lawsuit was an impermissible collateral attack on the
divorce decree. In doing so, the Court has this to say about the collateral attack doctrine:
Collateral attacks on final judgments are generally disallowed because it is the policyof the law to give finality to the judgments of the courts. Tice v. City of Pasadena,767 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.1989) (quoting Crouch v. McGaw, 134 Tex. 633, 138S.W.2d 94, 96 (1940)). A collateral attack, unlike a direct attack, does not attemptto secure the rendition of a single, correct judgment in place of the former judgment.Ramsey v. Ramsey, 19 S.W.3d 548, 552 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no pet.). Rather, itis an attempt to avoid the effect of a judgment in a proceeding not instituted for thepurpose of correcting, modifying, or vacating the judgment, but in order to obtainsome specific relief which the judgment currently stands as a bar against. See id., seealso Biaza v. Simon, 879 S.W.2d 349, 353 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writdenied). Only a void judgment may be collaterally attacked. Browning v. Placke, 698S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex.1985). A judgment is void only when it is apparent that thecourt rendering judgment “had no jurisdiction of the parties or property, nojurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, orno capacity to act.” Id. (citing Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Sierra Club, 495 S.W.2d878, 881 (Tex.1973)).
Id. at 549-50. See also Garza v. Fleming, 323 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Civ.App.–San Antonio 1959, writ
ref’d n.r.e.).
In this case, there can be little doubt that the 311 Family Court had jurisdiction to render ath
decision on the custody of the Del Rios’ son as part of the divorce proceedings. In such cases, the
311 Family Court had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the custody of the Del Rios’ son underth
the Family Code:
EXCLUSIVE CONTINUING JURISDICTION. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 152.204, a court of this state which
has made a child custody determination consistent with Section 152.201 or152.203 has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:(1) a court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and
one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent, have asignificant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 13
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
no longer available in this state concerning the child's care,protection, training, and personal relationships; or
(2) a court of this state or a court of another state determines that thechild, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do notpresently reside in this state.
TEX. FAMILY CODE § 152.202. As such, the filing of the lawsuit in this Court is an impermissible
collateral attack on the November 3, 2008 Final Order.
Additionally, this lawsuit constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the February 1,
2008 order dismissing the Plaintiff’s IDEA case. In order to challenge his son’s special education
designation or programs, Plaintiff must first properly exhaust his administrative remedies by
requesting a special education due process hearing, as required by the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(l) ("before the filing of a civil action under such laws seeking relief that is also available
under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted to the same
extent as would be required had the action been brought under this subchapter."); see also Gardner
v. School Bd. Caddo Parish, 958 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1992). As the Eastern District of Texas
noted in a case interpreting Gardner, a parent must bring exhaust the administrative remedies of the
IDEA if their claims would be covered by the IDEA, regardless of what claims (i.e. Section 1983)
the parent asserts or what relief they seek. Doe v. S & S Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 149 F.Supp.2d
274, 304 (E.D. Tex. 2001).
In this case, Del Rio did request a due process hearing; it was held on June 20, 2007; and on
August 24, 2007, the hearing officer issued a decision finding for the District and against Del Rio
on all issues. (Ex. A.) Del Rio appealed the decision to federal court on November 19, 2007 (Ex.
B), but then dismissed it himself on January 28, 2008. (Ex. C.) Although the dismissal was without
prejudice (Ex. D), the statutory limitations period for challenging a special education hearing officer
decision is 90 days, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B), so the August 24, 2007 decision is final for all
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 14
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
purposes. Moreover, since November 3, 2008 – before this lawsuit or any of Del Rio’s other current
lawsuits were filed – Del Rio has not had the legal authority to make educational decisions on behalf
of his son, or to file legal actions on his behalf, since the Family Court removed those rights in its
Final Order.
In addition, there is not a reasonable probability that Del Rio will prevail in the litigation
against the Defendants on substantive grounds. Although Del Rio claims that Denise Drexler
conspired with his ex-wife to have his son drowned at the YMCA in 2000, Denise Drexler was not
the Executive Director of Special Education for Spring ISD in 2000, and did not meet or have
anything to do with the Del Rio family until several years after that. (Affidavit of Denise Drexler,
attached as Exhibit NN.) Moreover, the financial basis for Del Rio’s alleged “conspiracy” – that
Drexler sought to render and keep N. Del Rio disabled to “ensure special education funding for SISD
until they could no longer detain N. for graduation at 25 years of age” (Original Complaint, p. 3 of
10) makes no sense; although Spring ISD does receive federal and state funding for a special
education student like Del Rio’s son, that funding does not cover all the expenses the District incurs
for such students, especially a student who has a fairly involved disability like autism. (Ex. NN.)
The bottom line, then, is that having N. Del Rio in the District as a special education student costs
the District money, because it must spend local funds to make up for what the state and federal funds
do not cover. (Id.) Assuming that there was ever a “conspiracy” to injure N. Del Rio or “debilitate
Nicholas Del Rio into mental retardation” – an allegation by the Plaintiff that the Defendants
seriously doubt – then Denise Drexler had every financial reason to not join that conspiracy, since
having N. Del Rio as a special education student has cost the District money, not made it money.
(Id.)
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 15
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Finally, none of the Spring ISD Defendants – including Denise Drexler, Janet Horton, and
Chris Gilbert – are part of any conspiracy to deprive Victor Del Rio of custody of his son. (Ex. N,
NN, and OO.) Ms. Drexler, Ms. Horton and Mr. Gilbert are committed to following any orders from
the 311 District Court (or any other court) regarding the issues of who has custody of or theth
authority over N. Del Rio for educational and legal issues. (Id.) Neither Ms. Drexler, Ms. Horton
nor Mr. Gilbert have sought to influence the 311 District Court’s decision regarding custody or anyth
other issue. (Id.) Neither Ms. Drexler nor Ms. Horton have ever spoken with or met Judge Warne
of the 311 District Court. (Exs. NN, OO.) Mr. Gilbert has had one telephone conversation withth
Judge Warne, which occurred in March 2009 – more than five months after the Final Order was
entered terminating Del Rio’s custody rights – which Mr. Gilbert initiated as a professional courtesy
simply to let Judge Warne know that Mr. Gilbert was removing a case that Mr. Del Rio filed in state
court in Travis County to federal court (Judge Warne was a named defendant in that lawsuit,
although he remains unserved to this day). (Ex. N.)
Ms. Horton has never, to the best of her knowledge, spoken directly to Tracey Del Rio
(unless it was to exchange pleasantries with her at any meeting at which they both might have been
present). (Ex. OO.) Mr. Gilbert has met Ms. Del Rio once, at the October 30, 2008 hearing in the
311 Court, at which time they engaged in small talk about the hearing. (Ex. N.) Ms. Drexler, asth
the Executive Director of Special Education, has obviously had numerous conversations about N.
Del Rio’s education with Tracey Del Rio. (Ex. NN.) They have at times discussed which parent had
or has custody of N Del Rio, and which parent was or is empowered to make education and legal
decisions for their son – which is something school districts must unfortunately discuss with all
divorced parents. (Id.) However, at no time has Denise Drexler sought to influence any custody
decisions regarding N. Del Rio. (Id.) As discussed above, she certainly has not conspired with
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 16
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Tracey Del Rio or anyone else to take away any of Victor Del Rio’s rights as a parent of N. Del Rio.
(Id.)
With regards to Elizabeth Pagel (Tracey Del Rio’s attorney), both Janet Horton and Chris
Gilbert have communicated with Ms. Pagel in their capacities as attorneys for Spring ISD, regarding
the status of the custody dispute between Victor and Tracey Del Rio, so that they could properly
advise the District as to which parent had the right to make education decisions for N. Del Rio. (Exs.
N, OO.) However, neither sought to influence the custody dispute between Victor and Tracey in
any way. (Id.) Mr. Gilbert has spoken with Ms. Pagel on several occasions since Mr. Del Rio
started filing all his lawsuits in December 2008/January 2009, regarding those lawsuits, but that was
all post-Final Order. Ms. Drexler has never spoken with Ms. Pagel, to the best of her recollection.
(Ex. NN.)
With regards to the hearing on October 30, 2008 at which the judge of the 311 Family Courtth
essentially removed Victor Del Rio’s parental rights, neither Ms. Drexler nor Ms. Horton were
present at that hearing. (Exs. NN, OO.) Mr. Gilbert was present at that hearing, but only because
he was there to advise the one Spring ISD employee who had been subpoenaed by Tracey Del Rio
to attend. (Ex. N.) The Spring ISD employee was not Denise Drexler; her identity is ultimately
irrelevant, because she ended up not testifying at all, since Victor Del Rio never showed up for the
hearing. (Id.) Neither Mr. Gilbert nor the Spring ISD employee said anything to the judge during
the hearing; they just sat in the back of the courtroom and watched. (Id.)
The bottom line is this: neither Denise Drexler (nor anyone else at Spring ISD), Janet Horton,
or Chris Gilbert played any role in Victor Del Rio losing custody of his son at the October 30, 2008
hearing. Mr. Del Rio lost that hearing because he did not show up! Ms. Drexler, Ms. Horton, and
Mr. Gilbert are not part of any conspiracy to do anything to Victor Del Rio. The allegation that
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 17
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
anyone at Spring ISD is conspiring to keep N. Del Rio in special education because they make
money off him being there is ludicrous; because state and federal special education dollars do not
cover all of the costs of educating N. Del Rio, the District must spend its own money (i.e. local
funds) to cover at least part of his special education costs. Put bluntly, the District loses money
having N. Del Rio in special education. Mr. Del Rio has and cannot present any evidence to the
contrary.
B. Victor Del Rio is attempting to relitigate in propria persona both the validity of a priordetermination and the same causes of action and/or claims - as well as the same issuesof fact or law – that were determined or concluded by the final determination againstthe Defendants.
As discussed above, Mr. Del Rio has sought to challenge the validity of the Final Orders
entered in his child custody case, and the educational plan for his son, in at least ten different
lawsuits other than this one, despite the fact that both of those decisions are final. The November
3, 2008 Final Order became final when Judge Warne dismissed the case on January 22, 2009 and
it was never appealed. The decision rejecting his attack on his son’s special education program
became final when Del Rio himself dismissed his appeal on January 28, 2008 – and Judge Werlein
has twice rejected attempts by Del Rio to reopen that case.
Most of the same outrageous allegations that Mr. Del Rio makes against Denise Drexler and
the various persons affiliated with Spring ISD were originally made in the Werlein Lawsuit in 2008,
which begins with the following factual allegations:
Tracey Del Rio and Denise Drexler collaborated with others to almost kill N. anddebilitate hm with brain damage (later diagnosed as Encephalopathy NOS, AutismPDD NOS, or Auditory Processing Disorder by co-conspirators at Texas Children’sHospital) by drowning him at a YMCA located in Spring, Tx. They conspired to:01 secure disability income for Tracey after child support payment ended when N.turned 18 years of age,02 ensure special education funding for SISD until they could no longer detain N.for graduation at 25 years of age,
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 18
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
03 remove any risk for providing N. his legal right to an IDEA 2004 compliant FreeAppropriate Public Education....
(Ex. K, p. 3.) Del Rio alleged that the conspiracy involved “tormenting” him and his son, denying
them access to the courts, “warrantless surveillance” (id.), as well as “plotting to have me
committed” and arranging to have his neighbors spy on him (id. at p. 6) – the same kind of factual
allegations made in this lawsuit. These issues were concluded by the final determination in the
Werlein litigation. (Exs. P, R.)
Likewise, the 2007 due process hearing addressed many of the same claims that Del Rio
makes in his lawsuits about his son’s education - including the claim that the District is not properly
working with Del Rio to ensure that his son can become a comic book artist after graduating from
high school. (See Ex. A, p. 1.) More importantly, the hearing officer found that Del Rio’s son’s
education plan for the 2007-2008 school year (the last year that Del Rio properly challenged) was
appropriate under the IDEA:
The Hearing Officer finds that the 2007-2008 proposed program is individualized toaddress N.D’s identified needs, and is provided in the least restrictive environmentthat would allow N.D. to achieve a meaningful educational benefit.
(Id. at p. 9.) The decision by the Hearing Officer that N. Del Rio’s education met the requirements
of the IDEA is a final decision, as Del Rio himself dismissed the federal appeal (Exs. C & D), and
the statutory limitations period for challenging a special education hearing officer decision is 90
days. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B).
IV.SECURITY
Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.051, the Defendants move the court for an
order requiring Plaintiff Victor Del Rio to furnish security. Because the security is an undertaking
by the plaintiff to assure payment to the Spring ISD Defendants of the Spring ISD Defendants’
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 19
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
reasonable expenses incurred in or in connection with this litigation, including costs and attorney's
fees, see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.055(c), the Spring ISD Defendants request that security
be set in the amount of $60,000.00.
V.PROHIBITING FILING OF NEW LITIGATION
Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.101, the Spring ISD Defendants move this
Court to enter an order prohibiting Victor Del Rio from filing, in propria persona, a new litigation
in a court in this state, for the reasons given above.
VI.EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to this Motion and incorporated herein for all purposes:
Exhibit A: Final Decision of the Hearing Officer;
Exhibit B: Original Complaint in Special Education Dispute;
Exhibit C: January 28, 2008 Letter from Del Rio to Court dismissing special educationappeal;
Exhibit D: February 1, 2008 Order dismissing special education appeal;
Exhibit E: August 18, 2008 “Emergency Motion to Reopen” special education appeal;
Exhibit F: September 2, 2008 Order denying first request to reopen special educationappeal;
Exhibit G: January 16, 2009 “Motion for Leave to Reopen and File AmendedComplaints”;
Exhibit H: Amended Complaint;
Exhibit I: “Motion to File RICO Case Statement”;
Exhibit J: Order denying second request to reopen special education appeal;
Exhibit K: Original Complaint in C.A. No. H-08-2366; N. Del Rio and Victor Del Riov. Denise “Dede” Drexler and Tracey Del Rio;
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 20
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Exhibit L: Amended Complaint in C.A. No. H-08-2366; N. Del Rio and Victor Del Riov. Denise “Dede” Drexler and Tracey Del Rio;
Exhibit M: Email Correspondence between Victor Del Rio and Christopher Gilbert;
Exhibit N: Affidavit of Christopher B. Gilbert;
Exhibit O: November 6, 2008 Stipulation of Dismissal;
Exhibit P: November 13, 2008 Order Granting Stipulation of Dismissal;
Exhibit Q: December 2, 2008 “Petition for Judicial Review”;
Exhibit R: December 12, 2008 Order by Judge Werlein dismissing Cause No. 08-2366;
Exhibit S: Final Order in Del Rio Custody Litigation;
Exhibit T: Opinion of the First Court of Appeals;
Exhibit U: Order Dismissing Del Rio Custody Litigation;
Exhibit V: Lawsuit filed against Judge Warne on December 3, 2008 in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania;
Exhibit W: Recommendation to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution (Pennsylvanialitigation);
Exhibit X: Notice of Removal to Northern District;
Exhibit Y: Order Transferring Northern District to Southern District;
Exhibit Z: Order of Dismissal from Southern District;
Exhibit AA: United States Supreme Court Petition;
Exhibit BB: February 24, 2009 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in federal courtin the Southern District of Texas;
Exhibit CC: Opinion on Dismissal;
Exhibit DD: March 3, 2009 Lawsuit filed in the Court of Federal Claims in WashingtonD.C.;
Exhibit EE: Petition in Travis County Lawsuit;
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 21
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Exhibit FF: April 7, 2009 Complaint filed in the District Court for the District ofColumbia;
Exhibit GG: April 8, 2009 Complaint filed in the District Court for the District ofColumbia;
Exhibit HH: May 4, 2009 Orders transferring both District of Columbia cases to theSouthern District of Texas;
Exhibit I I: “Emergency Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and OtherExtraordinary Writs” filed directly with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals onApril 10, 2009;
Exhibit JJ: Order Denying all requested writs;
Exhibit KK: May 4, 2009 “Petition for Emergency Relief - Custody”;
Exhibit LL: May 4, 2009 “Amended Complaint”;
Exhibit MM: May 14, 2009 Order denying attempt to reopen Werlein Lawsuit;
Exhibit NN: Affidavit of Denise Drexler;
Exhibit OO: Affidavit of Janet Horton.
VII.CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned attorney certifies that he communicated with Plaintiff Victor Del Rio by
email on July 13, 2009, and that Mr. Del Rio indicated that he is opposed to this Motion.
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 22
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Respectfully submitted,
THOMPSON & HORTON LLP
By: /s/ Christopher B. Gilbert Christopher B. GilbertState Bar No. 00787535Janet Little HortonState Bar No. 10021500
South Tower Pennzoil Place711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100Houston, Texas 77002Telephone: (713) 554-6744Fax: (713) [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Spring IndependentSchool District, Janet L. Horton, andChristopher Gilbert
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 23
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been forwardedby email and by certified mail, return receipt requested, on July 13, 2009 to:
Victor Del Rio2427 Pinpoint DriveSpring, Texas 77373
/s/ Christopher B. Gilbert Christopher B. Gilbert
M OTION TO HAVE VICTOR DEL RIO DECLARED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT, BY DEFENDANTS Page 24
SPRING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JANET L. HORTON , AND CHRISTOPHER GILBERT
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
CAUSE NO. 2009-17355
VICTOR DEL RIO, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR §
Plaintiff, § §
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS§
CITY OF HOUSTON, HARRIS § COUNTY, AND TEXAS, §
§ Defendants. § 157 JUDICIAL DISTRICTth
ORDER DECLARING VICTOR DEL RIO TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
Having considered the Motion to Have Victor Del Rio Declared a Vexatious Litigant, filed
by Defendants Spring Independent School District, Janet L. Horton, and Christopher Gilbert pursuant
to TEX. CIV. PRAC.& REM. CODE § 11.051 et seq., any response filed by the Plaintiff, and the hearing
held in this matter on August ___, 2009, the Court has determined that the motion has merit and
should be GRANTED. Accordingly:
1) Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC.& REM. CODE § 11.054, Victor Del Rio is declared a
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT in the State of Texas;
2) Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.051, the Court orders that Plaintiff
Victor Del Rio furnish security in this matter in the amount of $60,000.00, proof of
which shall be filed with the Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Order. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.055(c), the Plaintiff is hereby
notified that the security is an undertaking by the Plaintiff to assure payment to the
Spring ISD Defendants of their reasonable expenses incurred in or in connection with
this litigation, including costs and attorney's fees. Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. &
REM. CODE § 11.056, the Court shall dismiss this litigation as to the Spring ISD
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0
Defendants if the Plaintiff fails to furnish the security within the time set by in this
Order.
3) Pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.101, this Court orders that Victor
Del Rio is prohibited from filing, in propria persona, a new litigation in a court in this
state, unless the local administrative judge of the court in which Mr. Del Rio intends
to file the litigation first grants him permission under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 11.102 to file the litigation. Mr. Del Rio is warned that disobeying this Order may
subject him to contempt of court.
SIGNED this ____ day of ___________, 2009.
___________________________________DISTRICT JUDGE
Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3fb8d7ed-a02d-4a95-97d3-06c6cd3a45e0