in Re: Jules Dylan Stuer ( 2018 )

Denied and Opinion Filed November 26, 2018
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01346-CV
IN RE JULES DYLAN STUER, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-05507
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains of a
contempt order rendered against him for failure to pay amicus fees. To be entitled to mandamus
relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator
has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004)
(orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court
with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to
provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain documents, including any order complained of, any
other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to the
relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).
Here, the mandamus record does not include a certified or sworn copy of the order
complained of, all pleadings related to that order, or a hearing transcript. TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is
entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not
entitled to the relief sought).
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
181346F.P05
–2–