IN RE: Heathe E. Stagg (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Heathe E. Stagg, proceeding pro se, filed an “Original Application of Writ of Mandamus to Compel” in this cause through which he appears to seek a ruling on the merits in an underlying lawsuit.  See generally Tex.R.App. P. 25.1(a), (d);  In re Castle Texas Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex.App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”) (citing Boston v. Garrison, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (Tex.1953)).

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 appeal.  In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.2004) (orig.proceeding).  It is the relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief.  In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex.2003) (orig.proceeding);  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding);  In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding);  see 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, the 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.  The relator is also required to file an appendix and 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);  see also Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837;  In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.App.— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).

In addition to other deficiencies, relator's pleading does not include either an appendix or a record and is unsupported by any documentation or evidence.  Accordingly, 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.  State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210.  Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.  See Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(a).

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1 FN1. 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).