## NO. 12

- 20

- 00138

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

MARK SCHWARZER ,
RE L

ATOR § § § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Mark Schwartzer, a Texas inmate acting pro se, filed this original p roceeding complaining that he attempted to file a writ of injunction on four occasions with the 159 th Dist rict Court of Angelina County and that Respondent, Reba Squyres, the Angelina County Dis trict Clerk rejected the documents on each occasion

. 1 He also complains that Respondent, the Honorable Paul E. White , Judge of the 159th District Court, denied him due process and r efused to perform his official duties to consi der his w rit of injunction. He states that his preference is to now file wi th the 217 th D ist rict Court. Regarding Squyres , Relator contends that she abused her discretion by failing to file his writs of injun c tion for the release of state prisoners due to the COVID

- 19 pandemic. However, a district cle rk is not a judge over which this Court ha s mandamus jurisdiction ; nor does the record demonstrate that issuance of a writ of mandamus aga inst Squyres is necessa r y t o p rotect this Court ’ s jurisdiction. 2 See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.2 21(a) , (b) (West 2004) (wri t power); see

1 Stephen Bryant, Lorie Davis, Bryan Collie r, Dale Wain right, and Governor Greg Abbo tt appear to be the Real Parties in Inte rest.

2 For instance, w e have jurisdiction to issue a wri t of m a ndamus agains t a district clerk for failure to fo rward to thi s Court a notice of appeal de livered to the cler k for filing because such is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Talkington , No. 1 2

- 07

- 00272

- CR, 2007 WL 2178551, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler J uly 3 1, 2007, orig. proc eeding) (mem. op., not designat ed for publi cation); see Ex parte Sander s , No. WR

- 80,356

- 01 , 2013 WL 5872901, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 30, 2013) (order, not designated for publica tion) (per curiam); see also In re Foster , No. 14

- 16

- 00698

- CR, 2016 WL 5853282, at *1 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] O ct. 6, 2016 , orig.2 also In re Eaton , No. 12

– 15

– 00118

– CR, 2016 WL 6876502, at *1 (Tex. App.

– Tyler, Nov. 22, 20 1 6, orig. proceeding) (mem . o p., not designated for publication) (per curiam) (appellate court lacked jurisdic tion to conside r merits of mandamus petition as to district clerk ) ; In re Vargas , No. 01

- 12

- 00351

- CV, 2012 WL 1454550 , at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 st Dis t.] Ap r . 26, 201 2, orig. proceedi ng ) ( mem. op) ( per curiam) ( dismissing mandamus proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addr essing complaint that clerk refused to file petition was not ne cessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction )

. Accord ingly, we cannot exercise mandamus jurisdiction over Squy r e s under the facts of this case. With respect to Judge White, Relator contends that Judge White caused Squy r e s to prevent the writ of injunction from reac hing the t rial court. He requests that Judg e White be ordered no t to make any decisions regarding the writ of injunction

. This is essentially a request for a writ of prohibition. However, a writ of prohibition is a limited

- purpose remedy ; if is available to protect the subject matter of an appe a l or to prohibit unlawful interference with enforcement of an appellate court ’ s ju dgment. In re Miller , 433 S.W.3d 82, 84 (Tex. App.

— Ho u ston [1 st Dist.] 2014, orig procee ding). T he writ will not issue to protect an appellate court ’ s jurisdiction from th e mere possibility of interference by a trial court; rather, the threat of jurisdictional interference must be imminent. Id

. We are una w are of any pending appeal or appellate court judgment that would require imposition of a w r it of prohibition under the circumst ances o f th is case. And a n appellate court does not have general supervisory control over district and co unty courts

. In re No b le , No. 05

- 15

- 01366

- CV, 2015 WL 7717307 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Nov. 23, 2015, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.) ; see Garrison v. Mead , 553 S.W.2d 25 , 26 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Hous ton [1 st Dist.] 1977, orig. proceeding) ( recognizing lack of

“ authority to issue a wri t of prohibition to prevent respondent from proceeding with the pending suit ” ) ; see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 74.021 (West 2013 ) ( Texas S upreme Court has

“ supervisory and administrative control over the judicial branch and is responsible for the orderly and efficient admin istration of justice ” )

.

proceeding) (mem. op ., not designated f or publication) (per curiam); In re Smith , 263 S.W .3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. pr oceed in g)

.3 D ISPOSITION Having determined that we lack mandamus jurisdiction over Squy r e s in this case , we dismiss th at portion of this original proceeding for want of jurisdiction

. We deny that portion of the original pr oceeding as it pert a ins to Judge White. All pending motions are overruled as
moot

. Opi nion delivered September 2, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.4 

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COU RT OF APPEALS DISTRIC T OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 2 , 2020
NO. 12

- 20

- 00138

- CV

MARK SCHWARZER , Relator V.
THE HONORABLE PAUL E. WHITE , REBA S QUY R E S Respondent s

O RIGI NAL P ROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
M ark Schwarzer ; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12

- 20

- 00138

- CV . Said petition having been filed herein on June 17, 2020 , and the same having been duly c onsidered, because it is the opin ion of this Court that the writ should not issue , it is th erefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition be, and the same is, hereby denied in part and dismissed for want of jurisdiction in part

. By per cu riam o pinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C. J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.