in Re Tracey W. Murphy ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-15-00247-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE TRACEY W. MURPHY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Tracey W. Murphy, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
on June 1, 2015, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on and grant relator’s motion to
require the district clerk to file appellant’s pleadings. We deny relief as stated herein.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must
show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).
In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts
supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and
must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record
sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the
required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the
record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements. See generally
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. For instance, relator has not provided an adequate appendix or
record insofar as the documents attached to the petition for writ of mandamus fail to
include any file-stamped copies of relator’s pleadings or any documentation showing that
relators’ pleadings were received, reviewed, or rejected by either the district clerk or the
2
trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED, as is all other
requested relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
3rd day of June, 2015.
3