Opinion
No. 05-18-01400-CV
10-31-2019
SAMUEL T. RUSSELL, Appellant v. DALLAS COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, Appellees
On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. TX-17-00880
ORDER
Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Richter
The Hon. Martin Richter, Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Retired, sitting by assignment.
Appellant filed an instrument called "Appellant's Opposition" in which he complains that our mandate in a different appeal (Russell v. Dallas County, No. 05-17-01475-CV) named the presiding judge of the 162nd Judicial District Court instead of the retired judge who actually presided over the case. Consulting our records, we see that the mandate in that case is actually addressed to the 162nd Judicial District Court and not to any particular judge. Appellant apparently intends to complain about our notice letter accompanying the mandate, which is addressed to the presiding judge of the 162nd Judicial District Court by name.
Appellant further states that he has filed a federal lawsuit "questioning the mandate."
Appellant doesn't expressly ask us for any relief, but we surmise that he wants us to amend the mandate in No. 05-17-01475-CV. Because he hasn't shown any legal grounds for such relief, we DENY Appellant's Opposition.
/s/ BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE