in Re Timothy Patrick Lee, Relator ( 2017 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-17-00425-CV
________________________
IN RE TIMOTHY PATRICK LEE, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
December 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
On November 13, 2017, Timothy Patrick Lee, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the “Lubbock Municipal Court” to rule on
his motion to suppress, motion to release seized property, and motion to dismiss.1 By
letter dated November 14, this court advised Lee that the required filing fee of $155 did
not accompany the filing of his petition. We directed him to pay the required filing fee or,
in lieu thereof, to comply with chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
1
We have liberally construed the letter Lee filed on November 13, 2017, as a petition for writ of
mandamus despite his failure to provide the contents required by Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
by filing a statement of inability to afford payment of court costs, a separate affidavit
relating to previous filings, and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. See
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West 2017). We further advised
that if he did not comply by November 27, this proceeding was subject to dismissal without
further notice. To date, Lee has neither paid the filing fee nor provided any of the required
chapter 14 documents.
Unless a party is excused from paying a filing fee, the clerk of this court is required
to collect filing fees set by statute or the Supreme Court when an item is presented for
filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b). An inmate who files an affidavit or declaration of
inability to pay costs in an appeal or original proceeding must also comply with chapter
14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 14.002(a). An inmate’s failure to comply with chapter 14 is grounds for dismissal
of the appeal or original proceeding. See In re Johnson, No. 07-16-00354-CV, 2016 Tex.
App. LEXIS 11841, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 1, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
(per curiam) (dismissing inmate’s petition for writ of mandamus for failure to pay the filing
fee or submit the materials required to proceed under chapter 14).
Because Lee has failed to pay the filing fee or comply with chapter 14 of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code within the time provided by this court for compliance,
we must dismiss this original proceeding. We also note that this court’s mandamus
jurisdiction is limited to writs against a district court judge or county court judge in our
district and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN.
§ 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2017). We do not have authority to issue writs of mandamus
against a municipal court judge unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In
2
re Chang, 176 S.W.3d 451, 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding)
(per curiam). See also Thompson v. Velasquez, 155 S.W.3d 551, 554 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 2004, no pet.) (holding that district courts have general mandamus jurisdiction
over municipal courts).
Accordingly, Lee’s original proceeding is dismissed.
Per Curiam
3