Opinion
NO. 12-15-00274-CR
02-29-2016
IN RE: WELDON BRIDGES, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Weldon Bridges, seeks mandamus relief in connection with the denial of his objection to the presiding judge of the 159th Judicial District Court of Angelina County. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f), (g). The respondent is the Honorable Olen Underwood, Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Region.
This court's authority to grant writs of mandamus is limited. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)(1) (West 2004). Under the government code, a court of appeals has authority to issue writs of mandamus against (1) a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district or (2) a judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 52 in the court of appeals district. Id. However, the government code does not grant a court of appeals the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a regional presiding judge acting in his administrative capacity. See id.; In re Lopez, 286 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2008, orig. proceeding [mandamus denied]).
In this case, Relator complains about a matter relating to the respondent's performance of his duties under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(g). See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(g) (defining duties of regional presiding judge upon referral of a motion to recuse). Thus, Relator is complaining about an action of the respondent in his administrative capacity. Consequently, we have no jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against the respondent. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator's petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered February 29, 2016.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by WELDON BRIDGES. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on March 9, 2015, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that this petition for writ of mandamus should be dismissed, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.