Juan Enriquez v. Rick Thaler ( 2015 )

^ILEO IN COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE 129i Coun of Appeais District
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 12-14-00016-CV
f\ SEP 2jf 2015 A
JUAN ENRIQUEZ, •^PAW-eSTES. CLERK
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRAD LIVINGSTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the 369th District Court
of Anderson County, No. XXX-XX-XXXX
APPELLANT'S ADVISORY TO THE COURT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Juan Enriquez, Plaintiff-Appellant, herein informs the
Court that he has filed with the lower court a motion for
nunc pro tunc correction of order to reflect it was not mailed
to Appellant until July 1, 2015, as reflected in the postmark
on the envelope and that he has requested the Reporter from
Travis County to file the Reporter's Records in this case.
A copy of the motion and letter are attached.
Respectfully submitted,
XJu^n Enrique5^- / V^_J>
C^i7122
TDCJ-Michael
2664 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony, TX 75886
Certificate of Service
I, Juan Enriquez, certify that a correct copy of the above
advisory was served by placing same in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, on September 21, 2015, addressed to Ken .Paxton,
Attorney General of Texas, P. O. Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711.
CAVSn NO. 369-5019
JUAN EHRICHEZ, § • IV T?TR DISTRICT COT7FT
Plaintiff* §
§
v. § 369TH JOBICIAt. DISTRICT
BRAD LXVXNGSGNi BT ftl,., 5
Defendants* '5 ANDERSON COrjNTY* TEXAS
ptAIITTIFF'S HOTTER PQ% WTKC PRO TOST, CORRECTED ORDEfr
TO TFF HOJmGRABLB JUr>o exact rate
T T
J- -J. *
Tha date when rlaintiff received a copy of the judgment
is raore than 20 tfayn at tor it was signoi'-
• II.
The district clerk's civil docket does not reflect when
the order wne mailod to itaintiff. Also* the plaintiff aa a
prisoner docs not have access to the mail records of the Michael
Unit* T«xas Department of Criminal Justice correctional
Institutions Division (TDCJ_CID). Plaintiff, thus, needs an
evidentiary hearing where he cat? subpoena A. Cargill* mailroora
supervisor, Michael Unit/ to testify whan mail from the district
clerk for plaintiff reached the Michael 'Unit fros? April 22, 2015,
to -July IS, 2015, and Janice Staples, district cl'-Tk of Andexsian
County, to testify whan she mailed the orddr of dismissal to
plaintiff.
T Vv
*. *
Rule 305a, supra, seer,ions <•'! through 6 provide:
4. Kq notice of judgment* If within tv/enty day® after the- ^udgrasne
or other appealable order is signsd, a party adversely affected by it
or hia attorney has neither received the notice required by paragraph
(3) of this rule oor acquired actual knov?ledgs of the order, then with
respect to that party all the periods mentioned in paragraph (1) shall
begin on the date that such party or hi,?, attorney received such notice
or acquired actual knowledge of the signing, wnichevar occurred first,
but in no agent shall such periods begin iccte than ninety days after
fchtaoriginal ^udginsnc or other appealable order was signed.
5. Motion, notice and hearing. .In order to establish the application
of pargraph (4) of this rule, the party adversely affected io required
to prove in the trial court, on sworn motion and notice, the date on
which the party or his attorney first eifche received a nfctics of the
judgment oc acquired actual knowledge of *jft© signing and that this
date was more than twenty days after the jufigmetn was signed.
6. Nunc pro tunc order. When a corrected ludgaient he© been nigned
after expiration of. the court's plenary power pursuant to Pule 316,
the periods mentioned in paragraph (1) of this rule shall run from
the isifjtdiatje of the .signing the corrected judgment with respect to
asfjy complaint that would not be applicable to the original djacurasnt.
V.
A copy of the July 1, 2015, postmarked envelope frora the
district clerk was provided as EXHIBIT a to Plaintiff's petition
for mandamus filed September 14, 2015, by mailbox rule filing.
VI.
Plaintiff did not receive notice of the Ipril 22, 2015,
signing until after July 1, 2015, nor did he acquire actual
knowledge of tfca signing until after July 1, 2015.
WHEREFORE, fREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that
this motion be granted and that the motion be set for evidentiary
hearing at an early a, time and date as is consistent with the
business of the court.
Respectfully submitted,
/Juan Enriquez /
^227122 . ^
TDCJ-Michael
2664 FPf 2051
Tennessee Colony, TX 758S6
Certificate of Service
I, Juan Enriquez, certify that a correct copy of the above
motion was served by placing same in the United States wail,
postage prepaid, on September 21, 2015, addressed to Ken Paxton,
Attorney General of Texas. P. 0. Sox 12548, Hustln, TX 78711.
Juan Enrigqe,e
221122
WCj-Hichae!
i«64 fK 2054
Ti&nneas's© Colony, 'PS 75886
Se p e.oK»»e r 21, 201$
Official Reporter
34*Sth m .strict Co«rt
Travia County Courthouse
«?* O. Bos 174^
Austin, TX 79767
Re: Cauaa Ko. D-1-GS-1S-CC0377
Jumn P-nrin«wsa v. Brad I.ivJnaston
WO. 155-1*-000X«-CV„
Twelfth Court of.' ^ppealo
Dear f-ir or ?ia£awH§
On Aprils* ?0l-3f there wa« a hearing in. th$ S£5th
District Court on «• ma*"J#n to recnc* Ju^ae VfisJenos&y* Also*
oft June 26,2013, there waa • a hearing before Judge \:elenes!r/
to trensfoir venue in the above referenced case.
This case l« now on appeal in the Tw&fcfth Court of
Appeals. I n©t&d a transcript of both noarinqa fti-ac v?it*»
the Twelfth Court o** Appeals.
I was proceeding in forma pauperis in Travis? County.
I expect ffiravia County will pay your chArqea las the
•transcripts.
Very truly your»,
Ohia n En r ici©«s
ccj *?an Pass ton
Clerk, Twelfth court; of Appeals