Opinion
No. 06-17-00087-CR
05-11-2017
IN RE: CHRISTOPHER E. RYMAN
Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION
Christopher E. Ryman petitions this Court for mandamus relief. Ryman claims the 8th Judicial District Court in Hopkins County has failed to rule on motions Ryman says he filed in that court. Because the record supplied by Ryman is inadequate to establish a basis for mandamus relief, we deny the petition.
Ryman presents a copy of a motion to dismiss pursuant to the International Agreement on Detainers and a motion for time served. In the petition, Ryman claims the Hopkins County Sheriff's Department has rebuffed or ignored Ryman's attempts to resolve traffic tickets, and the pendency of those traffic tickets is impeding Ryman's placement prospects as he nears the end of a penitentiary stay. In addressing the instant mandamus petition, we do not address whether the 8th Judicial District Court has jurisdiction over the traffic offenses Ryman alleges (but presents no evidence of).
This Court has limited mandamus jurisdiction; we may issue a writ of mandamus only against a "judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district." TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (West 2004). That jurisdiction does not extend to other parties unless such mandamus relief would be necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (West 2004). Ryman's petition names the Hopkins County Sheriff's Department as co-relator, but the petition's prayer does not ask specific relief from the Sheriff's Department. To the extent Ryman seeks mandamus relief against that agency, we lack jurisdiction.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) that he has no adequate remedy at law and (2) that the action he seeks to compel is ministerial, not one involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). The relator is obligated to provide this Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198-99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Before mandamus may issue, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) ("Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court's attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.").
Ryman's petition is not accompanied by a certified or sworn copy of the motions that are the subject of his complaint, as is required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Compliance with this Rule is mandatory. See In re Estate of Velvin, 398 S.W.3d 426, 428 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.).
Ryman has failed to comply with the applicable rule regarding necessary documents to support his request for mandamus relief. He has failed to show himself entitled to relief.
"A party proceeding pro se must comply with all applicable procedural rules. . . . A pro se litigant is held to the same standard that applies to a licensed attorney." Weaver v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 942 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no writ) (citations omitted). Ryman "invokes the excusable error analysis of Houston v. Lack, [404] U.S. 519, 520-21; 92 S.Ct 594 (1972) [sic]." Houston involved an incarcerated pro se petitioner who deposited his notice of appeal in the prison mail system within the requisite time period. This was deemed filed when the prisoner petitioner delivered the notice to prison authorities for mailing to the district court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 274-76 (1988). This holding does not excuse a pro se litigant's responsibility to comply with procedural rules and requirements. See Wright v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice-Institutional Div., 137 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
We deny his request.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice Date Submitted: May 10, 2017
Date Decided: May 11, 2017 Do Not Publish