Opinion
No. 07-17-00116-CV
04-20-2017
IN RE SCOTT ALAN ODAM, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Scott Alan Odam, pro se, has filed an amended petition requesting a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief directed at a myriad of people. They include a county court at law judge, a municipal court judge, a justice of the peace, assistant district attorneys, assistant city attorneys, and police officers. We deny the petition.
We construe the request for declaratory relief per the Declaratory Judgment Act as a request to declare the rights involved as part of deciding whether to issue a writ of mandamus. We know of no authority permitting a Texas intermediate appellate court to generally entertain an original action for declaratory relief under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act, and Odam cites us to none.
Our authority to issue a writ of mandamus is limited. We may issue such relief (1) "to enforce [our] jurisdiction," TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (West 2004), and (2) "against a . . . judge of a district or county court . . . or . . . [a] judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry." Id. § 22.221(b)(1)-(2). None of the numerous individuals against whom Odam seeks relief fall within the scope of a "district or county court" judge.
One of the judges listed by Odam presides over a county court at law, i.e., statutory county court. As recently held by our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, § 22.221(b)(1) does not include jurists presiding over those courts. See Powell v. Hocker, No. WR-85,177-01, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 374, at *1-11 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 5, 2017).
How the relief sought is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction over some matter pending within our jurisdiction goes unexplained. Thus, his petition also falls outside the jurisdictional umbrella described in § 22.221(a). See In re James, No. 07-16-00113-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3026, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 23, 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (concluding that we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk where relator failed to indicate that he had an appeal pending in our court or otherwise demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction was necessary and appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction over some matter properly before us).
Odam did file an appeal in cause number 07-17-00076-CV. That appeal was abated due to his bankruptcy. Furthermore, it was an appeal from an order of dismissal entered by the judge of the 237th District Court of Lubbock County. The latter is not a party to the current mandamus. And why mandamus relief is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction over the abated appeal was unexplained.
Odam's amended petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Per Curiam