From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Singh

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 2, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00072-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 2, 2018)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00072-CV

02-02-2018

IN RE MEERA SINGH


On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) ("When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case," but when "denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so."); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

Meera Singh, proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading directed to the "Presiding Justice and Associate Justices" of this Court asking that we (1) "[p]rovide a level playing field instead of a legal gauntlet"; (2) consider certain exhibits provided by Singh; and (3) appoint counsel to pursue a petition for writ of mandamus to the Texas Supreme Court, or alternatively, appoint counsel for representation at the trial court. Singh's complaints in this original proceeding appear to be related to those raised in our appellate cause number 13-17-00233-CV. See Houston v. Nuckols Crossing Partners, Ltd. by & Through Blazer Real Estate Servs., L.L.C., No. 13-17-00233-CV, 2017 WL 6379804, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Dec. 14, 2017, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dismissing an appeal filed by a vexatious litigant). Singh argues, inter alia, that Nuckols Crossing Partners, Ltd. has failed in its duty to provide "a clean and stable environment for its tenants." She alleges that "Tenant's [sic] Houston and Singh are exercising a fundamental property right to due process and equal protection of the laws and a trial by jury while Texas courts go out of their way to hamstring the appellants at every turn." Singh does not appear to be appealing a specific order or judgment, and generally appears to be requesting affirmative relief. We construe this pleading as an original proceeding. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a), (d); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding) ("The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.") (citing Boston v. Garrison, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (Tex. 1953)).

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both of these requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

It is the relator's burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks."). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to "competent evidence included in the appendix or record," and must also provide "a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record." See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. The relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice Delivered and filed the 2nd day of February, 2018.


Summaries of

In re Singh

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 2, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00072-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 2, 2018)
Case details for

In re Singh

Case Details

Full title:IN RE MEERA SINGH

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Feb 2, 2018

Citations

NUMBER 13-18-00072-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 2, 2018)