IN RE: R. WAYNE JOHNSON (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, R. Wayne Johnson, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court (1) to find that the Honorable Bobby Lockhart, presiding judge of the 102nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas, lacked jurisdiction to enter an order dismissing Johnson's Chapter 14 lawsuit; and (2) to vacate the trial court's order dismissing his suit. We deny Johnson's petition for writ of mandamus because he has failed to provide us with a record to support his entitlement to mandamus relief.

It is relator's burden to properly request and show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In order to do so, relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is incumbent upon relator to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3,¹ 52.7.²

In support of Johnson's mandamus petition, he attached an order issued by the 102nd Judicial District Court in a lawsuit styled “R. Wayne Johnson, Plaintiff vs. Jennifer Doan, Don Ross, B. McBabe, S. Howen, Bowie County, Defendants,” cause number 17G0014-102, which reads,

Plaintiff, R. Wayne Johnson, has submitted a document titled, Plaintiff's Original Petition to the Bowie County District Clerk's office. However, undersigned, the Local Administrative Judge of Bowie County, FINDS Plaintiff has previously been declared a vexatious litigant in Bee County, Harris County and Travis County, therefore requiring him to obtain permission from the local administrative judge before filing new litigation. Plaintiff has failed to seek permission to file the above captioned lawsuit. To the extent Plaintiff contends his Original Petition seeks permission to file the above-captioned lawsuit, the Court FINDS the litigation lacks merit and DENIES Plaintiff permission to file the litigation.

The order also contains a handwritten note that reads “VOID!” and “VOID WANT OF JURISDICTION.”³ We assume this is the trial court's order of which Johnson complains.

Johnson's petition for writ of mandamus contains several references to a variety of cases and statutes, but completely lacks any procedural, factual, or evidentiary basis upon which to apply any relevant law. Although Johnson provides us with the trial court's order dismissing his lawsuit and occasionally refers to its order as “void,” he fails to point us to facts relevant to the presumed issue of whether the trial court's order is void. Likewise, he has failed to include a clearly stated argument in support of his position, whatever that position may be. In fact, Johnson's petition borders on incomprehensible. He has wholly failed to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837.

We deny Johnson's petition for writ of mandamus.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Rule 52.3, entitled “Form and Contents of Petition,” instructs that a petition must include, among other things, “all issues or points presented for relief” and “the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented. Every statement of fact in the petition must be supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” The Rule continues, “The petition must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.

2.   Rule 52.7, entitled “Record,” states, in part, that a relator is required to file with his petition “every document that is material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7.

3.   Johnson also attaches to his petition what appears to be an original petition “for civil conspiracy,” which contains no file-mark or trial court cause number, but indicates that it was intended to be filed in the 5th Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas. Like the contents of his petition for writ of mandamus, his original petition “for civil conspiracy” is practically unintelligible. A section entitled “Facts” reads: “A prior suit in Collin County, – on constable Bell by plaintiff and Joyce Craig – Judge White never had jurisdiction of pro-se suit: (See Attached).”

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess