Summary
dismissing mandamus proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addressing complaint that clerk refused to file petition was not necessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction
Summary of this case from In re TennysonOpinion
NO. 01-12-00351-CV
04-26-2012
IN RE RENE E. VARGAS, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rene E. Vargas has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the district clerk refuses to file the original petition and issue citation in Vargas's lawsuit against the district attorney who secured a criminal conviction against relator and the judge who presided over the trial.
We note that there is no trial court case number associated with this original proceeding because a lawsuit has not yet been filed.
This Court's mandamus jurisdiction is governed by the Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals and (2) writs against specified district or county court judges in the court of appeals' districts. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 2004). We have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding). Because Vargas's petition does not raise any threat to our jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.