in Re Robert Thomas Barnes, Relator ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                      NO. 07-08-0075-CV
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL D
    APRIL 29, 2008
    ______________________________
    IN RE ROBERT THOMAS BARNES, RELATOR
    _______________________________
    Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
    ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    Pending before this Court is the pro se petition of relator Robert Thomas Barnes for
    a writ of mandamus. Through it, relator asks for mandamus relief against respondent, the
    Honorable Don Emerson, judge of the 320th District Court of Potter County. We will deny
    the petition in part and dismiss it in part.
    Documents accompanying relator’s petition indicate he filed a petition in the 320th
    District Court seeking a change of name.1 As we read relator’s mandamus petition, he asks
    both that we direct respondent to rule on his name change request, and that we direct
    respondent to grant the name change request.
    1
    The pleadings request restoration of relator’s birth name, treated as a request for
    a name change. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 45.103 (Vernon 2005); In re Mayol, 
    137 S.W.3d 103
    (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
    To the degree relator asks for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to grant
    his requested name change, we deny his petition. Our authority does not permit us to
    adjudicate a matter pending in a trial court without the trial court first acting upon it. See
    O’Donniley v. Golden, 
    860 S.W.2d 267
    , 269 (Tex.App.–Tyler 1993, orig. proceeding) (when
    a trial court has yet to act, authority entitles us only to order the trial court to act; it does not
    allow us to tell the trial court what decision to make).
    To the degree relator’s petition simply seeks mandamus directing the trial court to
    rule, we will dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. We requested a response to
    relator’s mandamus petition. Tex. R. App. P. 52.4. The Attorney General of Texas has
    filed a response for respondent. The response contends relator has no entitlement to the
    mandamus relief he seeks. The response also establishes that respondent, on April 10,
    2008, signed a judgment denying relator’s requested name change, finding relator had
    failed to provide the certificate of discharge required by statute.2 Because respondent has
    ruled on relator’s name change petition, his mandamus petition asking us to require
    respondent to rule is moot. See Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc. v. Read, 
    104 S.W.3d 544
    , 545
    (Tex. 2003) (an actual, live controversy between the parties is required for subject-matter
    jurisdiction); State Bar of Texas v. Gomez, 
    891 S.W.2d 243
    , 245 (Tex. 1994) (for a
    controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties that will
    be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought).
    2
    See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 45.103(b)(1) (Vernon 2005).
    2
    Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus directing respondent
    to grant his name change petition, and dismiss his petition seeking a writ requiring
    respondent to rule on the name change petition.
    Per Curiam
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-08-00075-CV

Filed Date: 4/29/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/8/2015