From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Hayes

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Jul 26, 2005
No. 06-05-00094-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2005)

Opinion

No. 06-05-00094-CV

Submitted: July 25, 2005.

Decided: July 26, 2005.

Original Mandamus Proceeding.

Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CARTER, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Carl Douglas Hayes has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. He asks this Court to order Charles Bacarisse, the district clerk of Harris County, to perform his ministerial duty to receive and file all papers in and ancillary to his "tort claim." Hayes alleges he filed a petition with the district clerk of Harris County and the petition was instead filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas. Hayes claims the petition has yet to be filed with a Texas district court in Harris County. According to Hayes, the district clerk's actions are in violation of Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 21. Hayes requests that we order Charles Bacarisse to file his petition.

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code prescribes the original jurisdiction of the courts of appeals:

(b) Each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a:

(1) judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district; or

(2) judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the court of appeals district.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004). First, Harris County is not within our appellate district, and we do not have jurisdiction over a petition for writ of mandamus from that locale. Second, under the facts alleged, we do not have authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk. The Texas Legislature has not conferred authority on this Court to issue a writ of mandamus generally, and we do not have the authority in the context of these allegations to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk. See In re Dunn, 120 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding).

We note that we may have jurisdiction if an underlying appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court. See Gill v. Boyd Distribution Ctr., 64 S.W.3d 601 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.). There is no allegation that this suit concerns an appeal which was transferred to our Court.

Accordingly, we deny Hayes' petition for writ of mandamus.


Summaries of

In re Hayes

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Jul 26, 2005
No. 06-05-00094-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2005)
Case details for

In re Hayes

Case Details

Full title:IN RE: CARL DOUGLAS HAYES

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Jul 26, 2005

Citations

No. 06-05-00094-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2005)

Citing Cases

In re Hayes

Based upon those courts opinions, it appears that the issue was the same as is presented to us. See In re…