Opinion
No. 13-09-00295-CV
Opinion delivered and filed June 3, 2009.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Before Justices RODRIGUEZ, GARZA, and VELA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Relator, Dan Uzzell, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on June 2, 2009, through which he contends that the trial court erred in transferring venue. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.
Relator has previously raised the issues herein in other proceedings filed with this Court. See, e.g., In re Uzzell, No. 13-08-00570-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7537, at *1-2 (Tex.App. Oct. 8, 2008, orig. proceeding) (per curiam, mem. op.); Uzzell v. McGee, No. 13-07-00017-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 3895, at *1-2 (Tex.App. May 22, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Mandamus relief is proper only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). This burden is a heavy one. See id.
In the instant case, relator has failed to meet this burden. The petition for writ of mandamus fails to establish either requirement for relief and is further substantively deficient insofar as it lacks, inter alia, an appendix and record. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See id. 52.8(a).