IN RE: ROBERT MARTINEZ (2018)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Martinez, proceeding pro se, filed a document in this cause on May 29, 2018. Martinez contends that he is being denied meaningful access to the law library at the Bexar County Adult Detention Center and that the Bee County District Clerk, the Office of the Attorney General, and various departments of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice have not responded to his requests for relief regarding a civil lawsuit that he filed in trial court cause number B-17-1357-CV-B in the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas. Martinez requests that this Court assist him in compelling these individuals and entities to provide him with (1) the “complete names and physical addresses, phone numbers, employment records, ․ and complete contact information” for the defendants to his lawsuit; (2) copies of the defendants' answers to the lawsuit; (3) a certified copy of his filed petition “to perfect service”; and (4) an order compelling discovery responses from the defendants.

We construe Martinez's pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. His pleading does not reference an order or judgment subject to appeal and he asks this Court to command public officers to perform various actions. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a), (d); In re Castle Tex. 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, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (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). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); see also 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. In this regard, it is clear the relator must furnish an appendix or record that is sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).

Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals and provides that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6. As an appellate court, this Court's original jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); see also In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668, 671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, section 22.221 provides that we may issue writs of mandamus and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. § 22.221(a). This section also provides that we may issue writs of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals' district” or against a “judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry ․ in the court of appeals district.” Id. § 22.221(b).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Martinez has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. More specifically, we lack jurisdiction to issue mandamus against the individuals and entities complained of in this original proceeding and Martinez has not demonstrated that mandamus is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

GINA M. BENAVIDES. Justice