Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ALLEN “F” CALTON, Appellant v. DEBRA SPISAK, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Allen “F” Calton, an inmate at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus in the 384th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.1 In his mandamus petition, Calton asked the trial court to compel Debra Spisak, the clerk of the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, to file under cause number 02-04-00228-CR an omnibus motion to recall mandate 2 and a motion for new trial. Calton also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction in which he requested the same relief as he sought in his mandamus petition based on the same facts.3 The trial court found that Calton's claims were frivolous and had no basis in law or fact and dismissed his mandamus petition and injunction motion under Sections 13.001 and 14.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 13.001(a)(2), 14.003(a)(2), (b)(2) (West 2002). We affirm the dismissal of Calton's mandamus petition because the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.
“A district court has mandamus jurisdiction only to enforce its own jurisdiction.” Garrett v. Williams, 250 S.W.3d 154, 159 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing TEX. CONST. art. V, § 8; TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 24.011 (West 2004); Martinez v. Thaler, 931 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied) (per curiam)). The purpose of Calton's mandamus petition in the trial court was not to protect the trial court's jurisdiction. Further, a district court has no constitutional or statutory authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a clerk of a Court of Appeals. Therefore, the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to order the relief requested by Calton, and his petition for a writ of mandamus was properly dismissed. See Garrett, 250 S.W.3d at 159 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003(b)).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FOOTNOTES
1. Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We follow the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals in deciding this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued its mandate in cause number 02-04-00228-CR on February 17, 2006. In re Calton, No. 02-15-00280-CV, 2015 WL 5175467, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 4, 2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
3. Since the injunction motion was based on the same facts and requested the same relief as his mandamus petition, we construe it as a supplement to the mandamus petition.
Ralph K. Burgess Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 06-16-00014-CV
Decided: July 13, 2016
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)