1 Further citation of

Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure will be by reference to “Rule __.” NO. 07-07-0010-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY

18, 2007

______________________________ IN RE MIC HAEL LOU GARR ETT, RELATOR

_______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Relator, Michael Lou Garr ett, has filed a t hird Petiti on for Writ of Mandamus requesting this Court

order respon dents, “Debbi e Liles , Kelli Ward, Jamie L. Baker and their a gents [,] E.C. Williams (Warden, Allred U nit)[,] and F .L. Haynes (Access to C ourts Coordinator/ Indigent

Supplies Supervisor, Allre d U nit)[,] to i mmediately r efrain from depriving relator, an indigent pr isoner, of indi gen t suppli es needed and necess ary for processing the matter of this appeal [Cause No. 07- 06-00428-CV].”We deny the petition. Texas Rule of Appe llate Procedur e 52.3 1 identifies the r

equirementsfor a petition for wri t of ma ndamus file d in this court. Garrett has failed to com ply with these requirements. Rule 52.3 requir es that all factua l statements in a petition must be ver ified by affidavit made on per

sonal know ledge. While Garrett does not include an affidavit, he2 Garrett contends that mandamus is necessar y for the processing of his pending appeal in cause number 07-06-004 28-CV. However, nowhere in Garrett’spetition for writ of mandamus does he identi fy the nature of the case u nderlying this appeal nor does he provide any

information from w hich the nature of this appeal can b e gleaned. 2 doe s incl ude an un sworn decl arat ion s ubje ct to pena lty ofperju ry, as a utho rized by T EX . C IV . P RAC
. & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 132.001(a) (Vernon 2005 ). However, Rule 52.3(a) requires thata petition must include a com plete list of all parties and th e names and addresse s of all counsel. G arrett does not list the names of th e parties against whom he seeks mandamus relief

apart from their identificat ion in the argument portion of his petition. Rule 52.3(b) requires

thatthe petition include a table of contents wi th references to t he pages of the petition and an indication of thesubject matter of each issue or point rai sed in the petition. Garrett’s

petition inc ludes no table of co ntents. Rule 52.3(c) req uires that a petition include an index of authoritie s in which all authorities cited in the petition are arranged alphabeticall y and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is indicated. Garrett’s petition inc ludes no index of authorities. Rule 52.3(d) requires a statement of the
case. Gar ret

t’speti tion doesnot conta in a sta teme nt of the case a nd do es no t id enti fy the nature of the underlyin g proceed ing. 2 Rule 52.3(f) requiresthe petition include a concise statement

of all issuesor points pr esented for rel i ef. Garrett’s petition includes no such statement. Each of these itemsare requi red in a petit ion for wr it of manda mus and , as Garrett failed to include the m in his petition, we will not grant the relief that he requests.
Howeve r, e ven if Garrett had complied with the requirement s of Rule 52.3, his petition fa ils to establish hi s entitlement to mandamus relief. A court of appeals has auth ority t o issue w rits of mandamus ag ainst distr ict and county court judg es withi n the3 Rule 38.8(a) (1) prov ides for dismis sal unless “the appellant reasonably

explains the failure and the appe llee is not significantl y injur ed” by the fail ure. Thus, Garrett would ha ve the opportunity

to provi de the court an ex planation of the efforts that he ha s undertaken to timely fil e an appellate br ief and how maintaining the app eal on the court’s docket would not s ignificantl y injur e the appellees. Theref ore, Garrett has an available 3 court of appeals’ s distric t and all w rits necess ary to enforce its juri sdiction. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(a), (b) (Ver non 2004). As none of the named responden ts are identified as ju dges, they are n ot with in ou r juris dict iona l reac h and we have no author ity to issue a writ

of mandamus against t he respondents abs enta showing that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our juris diction. In re Cummins , 2004 WL 1948048, at *1 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 2004, orig. pr oceeding) ( mem. op.); In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1998, ori g. proceedi ng).
Garrett contends that issuance of the wri t is necessar y to enforce our

jurisdic tion because, if we do not i ssue the wr it, he will be “deprived of his right to process his appeal” in c ause number 07-06- 00428-CV. Gar rett has prov ided this cour t none of the m ateria l documents relating to his pending appeal in causenumber 07-06- 00428-CV, see Rule 52.3(j)(1), and, as mentioned abov e, has failed to even identify thenature of the underl ying proceeding from which heappeals. Thus, w e are unable to determine, from the documents provided in support of hi s petition, whether our issuance of mand amus would be necessary

to enforce this court’s jurisdiction over that appeal. Garr

ett contends that he is required to file a brief i n support of his ap peal and that the deni al of the supplies necessary to file this brief affe cts this court’s enforcement o f it jurisdiction over that appeal. However, Rul e 38. 8 pr

ovi des courts of appeals thre e options when a civil appellant fails to timely fil e an appellate br ief: (1) dismi ss the appeal for wan t of prosecution, 3 (2) decli neremedy

at law of a potential dismissal f or want of prosecution under Rule 38.8(a)(1) and mandamus relief is not

appropriate. See Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. W ittig , 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1 994). 4 to dismiss the appeal and give further direction to the case as the court considers proper,
or (3) if an appell ee’s brief is filed, regard that brief as corr ectly pr esenting the case and affirm the trial court’s judgment without examining the record . As none of these options implicate this court’ s jurisdi ction to consi der Garrett’ s appeal in c aus e number 07-06- 00428-CV, we conclude that G arrett has fail ed to show how issuance of the requested writ of mandamus would be n ecessary to the enforcement of this court’s j urisdicti on. As Garrett’s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with therequirements of Rule 52.3 and fail s to establis h how the writ is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdict ion, we deny

the petition.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice