Opinion
No. 14-09-00656-CV
Opinion filed August 20, 2009.
Original Proceeding.
Writ of Mandamus.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 28, 2009, relator, Robert V. Holland, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, relator seeks to compel the Honorable Patricia Hancock, presiding judge of the 113th District Court of Harris County, to set aside the July 6, 2009 temporary injunction order.
As an initial matter, relator's petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although relator cites to an appendix in his petition and states, in an affidavit in support of his petition, that he has reviewed "the appendices, and they are true and correct copies of the originals," no such appendix or record has been filed with the petition, including the temporary injunction order about which he complains. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (stating appendix must contain certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing matter complained of); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (requiring relator to file certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to relator's claim for relief and was filed in underlying proceeding). Notwithstanding these deficiencies, relator still cannot prevail on his request for mandamus relief.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, a relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and he has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus may not be used as a form of interlocutory appeal. N.H. Helicopters, Inc. v. Brown, 841 S.W.2d 424, 425 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding). Section 51.014(a)(4) specifically provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008). Therefore, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Henry, 274 S.W.3d 185, 189 n. 2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) ("Because Henry had an adequate remedy by appeal of the temporary injunction, mandamus was not appropriate as to the temporary injunction, and we denied mandamus as to the TRO.").
Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.