Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, In Part, and Denied, In Part, and 

Memorandum Opinion filed May 7, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00379-CR

IN RE JA'COY O'BRIEN O'HARA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

209th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1418602

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 28, 2015, relator Ja’Coy O’Brien O’Hara filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel Chris Daniel, 

Harris County District Clerk, to file relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 

with the trial court. Relator also asks this court to compel the Honorable Michael 

McSpadden, presiding judge of the 209th District Court of Harris County, to 
2

address a petition for writ of mandamus relator allegedly filed in that court, in 

which relator purportedly requested the trial court to compel the district clerk to 

file relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

No Jurisdiction to Issue Mandamus Petition Against District Clerk

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus 

jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a 

county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to 

enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The 

district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and 

relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is 

necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we lack 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

No Entitlement to Mandamus Relief Against District Judge

As relator’s petition concerns the presiding judge of the 209th District Court, 

relator contends that he filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the trial court, 

and implies that the trial court has not ruled on relator’s petition. Those seeking 

the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural 

rules. In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. 

proceeding). Among these rules is the obligation to provide the reviewing court 

with a complete and adequate record sufficient to establish the relator’s entitlement 

to relief. Id. (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)). 

Specifically, relator is obligated to furnish a record containing a certified or sworn 
3

copy of every document filed in the underlying proceeding that is material to 

relator’s claims for relief. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). 

Relator has failed to provide this court with a record containing any 

documents. Thus, the court is without a certified or sworn copy of every document 

filed in the underlying proceeding that is material to relator’s claims for relief. 

Relator’s status as a pro se party does not exempt him from complying with the 

applicable rules of procedure. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 

2005). 

Moreover, relator has failed to brief his complaints adequately. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.3(h) (providing that a petition “must contain a clear and concise 

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to 

the appendix or record”). Relator’s petition contains no citations to any case law in 

support of his claims for relief, nor does it contain any citations to any appendix or 

record. Relator’s failure to properly brief his complaints is in itself a sufficient 

reason to deny relator’s petition. See, e.g., In re Fitzgerald, 429 S.W.3d 886, 897 

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2014, orig. proceeding) (finding briefing waiver and stating that 

Rule 52.3(h) “requires that the relator provide substantive legal analysis as well as 

citations to authority supporting his legal arguments and conclusions.”).

For the reasons discussed, relator has not established that he is entitled to 

mandamus relief against the district judge.
4

Conclusion

To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against the district clerk, we 

dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the remainder of the 

petition for writ of mandamus.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).