IN RE: Martin Mendoza (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests that the Court order the trial court to rescind its order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust account and return those funds to his account.  Ordinarily, to obtain 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).  Neither requirement is satisfied in this case.

An inmate is entitled to notice, via copy of an order of withdrawal or other notification, and an opportunity to be heard concerning withdrawal of funds from his inmate trust account.  Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (Tex.2009).  Neither need occur before the funds are withdrawn.  Id. Notification of the withdrawal after removal of the funds satisfies the notice requirement.  Id. The opportunity to file a motion challenging the withdrawal satisfies the requirement that the inmate be afforded an opportunity to be heard.  Id. Thus, relator has not demonstrated that the trial court has abused its discretion.

Relator also has not shown that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.  The proper method for seeking appellate review of an order of withdrawal of funds from an inmate trust account is by appeal of the order.  Id. (“[A]ppellate review should be by appeal, as in analogous civil post-judgment enforcement actions.”)

We deny the petition.

Opinion by Justice Lang