Opinion
No. 14-07-01045-CV
Opinion filed January 29, 2008.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices ANDERSON and BOYCE.
OPINION
On December 13, 2007, relator Ivo Nabelek filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. Proc. 52. In his petition, relator asks this court to direct respondent Teresa Chang, Harris County District Clerk, to file relator's petition for expungement of criminal records in the proper district court and to set it for hearing without delay. According to allegations contained in relator's petition for writ of mandamus, respondent (1) filed relator's petition for expungement in the criminal case the records of which relator seeks to have expunged and (2) advised relator that no action would be taken on the petition for expungement because such proceeding must be pursued in civil rather than criminal court. This court's power to issue writs is defined in Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 grants the courts of appeals the authority to issue (1) writs of mandamus and other writs necessary to enforce their jurisdiction; (2) writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals's district; and (3) writs of habeas corpus under specifically defined circumstances involving contempt orders in civil cases. Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). Relator has not claimed or shown that the relief requested is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of our court, and we are not otherwise authorized to issue writs of mandamus against clerks of court. See In re Dunn, 120 S.W.3d 913 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (O'Connor, J., concurring). This proceeding is, therefore, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
It appears from the incomplete record before us that relator's petition for expungement bore the caption of the 351st District Court. Conceivably, respondent may have believed relator sought to file a pleading in an existing (albeit closed) case rather than to institute a new and independent proceeding.