Opinion
No. 05-18-00543-CV
05-15-2018
IN RE DELORIS PHILLIPS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-00541
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Before the Court is relator's May 10, 2018 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator seeks a writ of mandamus appointing her counsel as an indigent party, instructing the trial court to vacate its orders granting motions to quash and denying relator's motion to modify a protective order, and compelling discovery from the Dallas Police Department and various Department employees. We deny the relief requested.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). It is relator's burden to provide the court with a record sufficient to establish her right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide "a certified or sworn copy" of certain documents, including any order complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Rule 52.3 also requires the relator to certify that she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).
Relator's petition for writ of mandamus is not certified as required by rule 52.3(j) and does not include a certified or sworn copy of the orders complained of in this proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Based on these deficiencies, we deny relator's petition. Further, relator has not established that this is an exceptional situation warranting appointment of counsel for a civil litigant. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 24.016 (a district court "may" appoint counsel for an indigent civil litigant); see also Hines v. Massey, 79 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, no pet.) (the general rule is that a court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint such counsel unless the case is "exceptional."); Aberegg v. Ceschan, No. 05-12-01000-CV, 2014 WL 2921657, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 25, 2014, no pet.) ("An exceptional circumstance is by definition rare and unusual" and the trial court does not abuse its discretion to deny appointment unless the party "demonstrates why the public and private interests at stake are so exceptional that the administration of justice would best be served by appointing an attorney to represent him.")
Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown she is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE 180543F.P05