1

Cause No. 2012-24678

Patricia Ann Potts, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. § § Texas Department of Family and § Protective Services, et al § 257TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants §

Objection to Order for Stay and Dismissal of Lawsuit Pursuant to Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §11.103(B) and Motion To Vacate The Same

COMES PRO SE PLAINTIFF Potts to Object to Order for stay and dismissal of the above-styled lawsuit and for assessment of costs against Plaintiff, and to Request Order vacating the same due to order was issued without any Parties’ participation, agreement, or request, and without “Notice” (that Plaintiff was previously determined a vexatious litigant and is under a pre-filing order), required by Section 11.103(b) of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, filed and served upon all Defendants and expressing Party’s desire to exercise right to seek stay and dismissal of subject lawsuit. Honorable Judge’s biased representation of Defendants thru unsolicited issuance of said Order without “Notice” or request from any Party to this lawsuit demonstrates unlawful bias, error of law, abuse of discretion, and violation of the rights of all Parties to this lawsuit. In support of this motion, I would show the following:

1. Pre-filing Order prohibiting me from filing any new litigation “in propia persona” does not prohibit my legal representation of Minor Plaintiff (my daughter) in this subject appeal thru bill of review of complained of default judgments modifying Child Visitation, Child Custody, and Child Support.

I am subject to a pre-filing order which prohibits me from representing myself without assistance of an Attorney. (See attached copy of Pre-filing Order) But I am not prohibited from representing my minor daughter for the purpose of protecting her from the fraudulent default judgments (and unlawful “altering” of government case file record of my Divorce) unlawfully obtained by Defendant Public Employees without serving me process. This subject Bill of Review is not filed in “propia persona”, but in the interest of my minor daughter. Complained of judgments appealed from in original petition for Bill of Review clearly regard child custody, child visitation, and child support interest, and are of interest to both my minor daughter and myself.

2. No Party of this Lawsuit has demonstrated desire to exercise right to seek stay and dismissal of this lawsuit, or filed “Notice” required by Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code &11.103(b).

Filed 12 June 1 A10:44Chris Daniel- District ClerkHarris CountyED101J016907200By: Wanda Oakley

2

No Party has filed “Notice” required prior to issuance of order for stay and dismissal of litigation pursuant to Section 11.103(b). And yet Honorable Judge has issued order staying litigation without expressed request, participation, or even agreement from any Party. Honorable Judge is not a Party to this lawsuit. And Honorable Judge should remain impartial and not act “in the interest” of any Party. Honorable Judge’s actions constitute “bias”. And Honorable Judge is prohibited from biased “representation of Defendants” in this lawsuit. Moreover, District Clerk (Defendant in this subject Bill of Review) has ignored my pauper’s oath and refused to serve process to Defendants pursuant to TRCP Rule 145 (for persons unable to pay court costs). And my filed objection and request for order directing clerk to stop depriving me of informa pauperis status is presently pending ruling from the Honorable Judge since May 12, 2012. If Honorable Judge will grant request for order directing Clerk to serve process to Defendants, Defendants will appear and may, themselves, seek “stay and dismissal” of suit by serving and filing “Notice” required by Section 11.103(b).

3. Order is undecipherable and does not comply with procedural law for Section 11.103(b) stay and dismissal of lawsuit.

Plaintiff is unsure of how to comply with Order that is not understandable. Honorable Judge has improperly issued order requiring me to obtain permission for litigation (from local administrative judge) “...within ten (10) days of this Order, but no later than June 15, 2012...”. Order is signed and dated May 10, 2012. It is unclear whether permission must be obtained within ten (10) days, or within thirty-five (35) days. And Section 11.103(b) requires that permission for litigation be obtained “within ten (10) days” of required “Notice” filed and served by a Party, but there is “no required filed Notice”.

4. Honorable Judge and (Defendant)District Clerk have prevented me from “timely” receipt of permission to file litigation.

I am unable to “timely” receive permission for subject litigation from local administrative

judge “within ten (10) days of Notice” as required by Section 11.103(b), or even “within ten (10) days of Order” signed May 10, 2012. District Clerk failed to send me any notice of order obtained May 10, 2012. And Honorable Judge sent me “untimely” copy of complained of Order thru USPS mail postmarked May 22, 2012. And Order was signed May 10, 2012. Therefore, I am unable to timely obtain permission for litigation pursuant to Section 11.103(b), or pursuant to signed order, as I am able to understand order.

5. Order demonstrates “bias” and “attempt to obstruct subject Bill of Review” from Honorable Judge.

As stated herein earlier, Honorable Judge’s unsolicited issuance of order for stay and

dismissal demonstrates that the Honorable Judge has acted “in place of”, and so as to “represent”, Defendants in the exercise of Defendants’ right to seek stay and dismissal of this lawsuit pursuant to CPRC Section 11.103(b). This constitutes unfair bias. And in May 10th Order, Honorable Judge stated that she has reviewed the Record, if so, Honorable judge must

3

4

Cause No. 2012-24678

PATRICIA ANN POTTS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al 257TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants

ORDER

On this date came on for consideration PLAINTIFF’S “Objection to Order for Stay and Dismissal

of Lawsuit Pursuant to Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §11.103(B) and Motion to Vacate the same”, and

the Court, having reviewed the motion, is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Order for Stay and Dismissal is Vacated.

SIGNED this ________ day of ___________________20____.

___________________________________ JUDGE PRESIDING

5

Cause No. 2012-24678

Patricia Ann Potts, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff, § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS vs. § § Texas Department of Family and § Protective Services, et al § 257TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants §

NOTICE OF HEARING

Pro Se Plaintiff’s (1) “Objection and Request for Order directing Clerk to Stop Depriving Plaintiff of Right to Proceed Informa Pauperis in this Lawsuit, (2) “Objection to Order to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution, Request for Ruling on Filed Motions for Order Directing Clerk To Serve Process To Defendants and for Vacating Stay, and Request to Change Time of June 15, 2012 Hearing to 10:00AM Instead of 09:00AM”, and (3) “Objection to Order to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution, Request for Ruling on Filed Motions for Order Directing Clerk To Serve Process To Defendants and for Vacating Stay, and Request to Change Time of June 15, 2012 Hearing to 10:00AM Instead of 09:00AM” will be heard on June 15, 2012 at 10:00am.

Sincerely,

/S/ Patricia Potts, pro se PO Box 3453 Crosby, TX 77532 (281) 386-2187