Opinion
No. 05-06-00957-CV
Opinion Issued July 31, 2006.
Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause numbers F89-82006-Rq; F89-82997-Jq; F87-83528-Mq; F87-76764-Jq; F87-84100-Q; F87-84563-Rq; F89-78524-Lq; F90-13108-UQ.
Writ of Quo Warranto Dismissed.
Before Justices MOSELEY, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, a pro se inmate, brings a quo warranto action against two judges and two prosecutors involved in his criminal convictions, and against various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The relator states that he must bring this quo warranto action on his own behalf because no Texas officials will file this action to challenge the authority of the officials involved in his convictions and incarceration.
A quo warranto proceeding "must state that the information is sought in the name of the State of Texas." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 66.002 (Vernon 1997). Quo warranto is not available to a private citizen in his private capacity. See Bute v. League City, 390 S.W.2d 811,815 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1965, no writ). In quo warranto cases, the State is an indispensable party. See Bledsoe v. Beard, 516 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). "Jurisdiction of the Court over indispensable parties to a cause of action is essential to the court's right, power or authority to proceed to judgment." Id. (quoting City of Arlington v. Bardin, 478 S.W.2d 182, 190-1 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Accordingly, we DISMISS this petition for quo warranto for want of jurisdiction.