Opinion
NO. 02-14-00288-CV
09-17-2014
IN RE FI'NESS EDWARD STOKES RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Relator Fi'ness Edward Stokes, pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Fort Worth Municipal Court Judge Ninfa L. Mares to rule on his "Return of Property Suit for Summary Judgment."
This court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court judges, to issue writs of mandamus against a district judge acting as magistrate in a court of inquiry, and to issue all other writs necessary to enforce its own jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). We do not have mandamus jurisdiction over a municipal judge. See, e.g., In re Cummings, No. 02-10-00429-CV, 2010 WL 5019646, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 9, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction petition to mandamus municipal court judge); In re Griffith, No. 02-06-00361-CV, 2006 WL 3114455, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 31, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (same); In re Chang, 176 S.W.3d 451, 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (same). Relator has made no allegation or showing that the relief sought is necessary to enforce this court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator's petition for want of jurisdiction.
Without commenting on the merits of the relief Relator seeks, we note that district court is the proper forum in which to seek mandamus relief against a municipal court judge in this case. See In re Marshall, No. 04-02-00819-CV, 2002 WL 31662743, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 27, 2002, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (citing Tex. Const. art. V, § 8; Grimm v. Garner, 589 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tex. 1979); Thorne v. Moore, 101 Tex. 205, 208, 105 S.W. 985, 986 (1907); Cantu v. Samples, 581 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1979, no writ)).
--------
PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, DAUPHINOT, and WALKER, JJ. DELIVERED: September 17, 2014