Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Carvel Johnson, proceeding without counsel, filed a notice of appeal from a June 8, 2026 order denying his motion for summary judgment in litigation against Ramona Denise Robinson. The First Court of Appeals notified Johnson that it lacked jurisdiction and directed him to explain why the order was appealable.
Johnson timely responded, but his response did not establish appellate jurisdiction and confirmed that he sought review of the denial of summary judgment. In a separately filed verified affidavit dated July 21, 2026, Johnson argued that the June 8 order should be considered final because it disposed of all claims and parties. He also asked the court to treat his attempted appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus if appellate jurisdiction was lacking.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the order denying Johnson’s summary-judgment motion was neither a final judgment nor an interlocutory order made appealable by statute. Johnson’s filings did not demonstrate otherwise.
The court granted Johnson’s request to treat the appeal as a mandamus petition but denied relief. It explained that mandamus generally is unavailable to review the denial of summary judgment because the movant ordinarily has an adequate remedy through an appeal after final judgment. The court also dismissed all pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- An order denying summary judgment ordinarily is not immediately appealable.
- A timely request may permit an appellate court to construe an attempted appeal as a mandamus petition when appellate jurisdiction is absent.
- Mandamus generally will not review a denial of summary judgment because an appeal after final judgment ordinarily provides an adequate remedy.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between an immediately appealable order and an interlocutory ruling that must await final judgment. Recasting an unauthorized appeal as a mandamus proceeding may preserve a request for review, but it does not eliminate the demanding requirement that the relator lack an adequate appellate remedy.