NO. 07-09 -026 5-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C OC TOBER1, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E RAN DY

LAC KEY , R ELATOR

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON By thi s o ri g ina l proceed in g , R e l a t o r , R andy Lac key , an inmat e c ur re ntl y i ncarcerated in t h e In st it u ti o n a l Divis io n of th e T e xas De p a rt m e n t o f Crim in a l Ju st ice , p ro ce e d in g pro se and in form a pa upe ris , s eeksa w ri t of mandamus to compel the Hon orabl e Gordon G re en, Judg e of the 287th Di str ict C our t of Bail e y Co unty , t o c onsi der and ru le on a br ief and mo tions a nd proce ed to trial o r f inal judgme nt. Fo r th e reaso ns he rein, Relato r’s request for mandamus reli ef is deni ed. Back ground Facts Accordin g to exhibits atta ched t o Re lator’s pet ition, Rea l Partyin Intere st, Robe rt Mc Coo l, an a ttor ney , was re tai ned t o representR ela tor i n a forfeit ure proceed ing pendi ng2

in Bai ley C ounty and a cr imi nal proceed ing pendi ng i n Lubbo ck C ounty
. After Mc Coo l fa i l e d t o a p p e a r

fo r a h e a r i n g s c h e d u l e d i n t h e fo r fe i t u re p ro c e e d i n g , j u d g me n tw as re ndered agai nstRela tor resul ti ng in lossof

perso nal proper

ty in the am ount of $12,256. Rel ator then su ed M cC ool for l eg al malpract ic e i n 2002. I n 2 0 0 3 , th e tr ial co urt ordered the suit aba ted due to the pen den cy of a similar malp ractice suit in the 72n d District C ourt o f L u b b o c kC o u n ty
. On Apr i l 5 , 2 0 0 4 , t h e t r i a l c o u rto rd e re d t h e p a rt i e s t o fi l e b r i e fs item iz ing the issues to be litigated. Relato r was giv en th irt y-f iv e da ys in w hich to f ile his br ief and Mc Coo l w as g iv en th ir ty days a fter t he dat e R ela tor ’sbr ief was filed i n w hic h to re spond
. Rel ator fil ed a bri ef dis ti ng uis hin g the two lawsui ts. Alth oug h R ela tor ’sbr ief i s n ot file sta mped, t he c erti ficat e of serv ic e reflects thata copy w as mail ed to McC ool on May 5, 20 04. Rel ator

ex pla ine d tha t t he mal pract ic e s uit pendi ng in the 72nd D is tr ict C our t of Lub bock Cou nty was for McCool’s failure to a ppe ar in Relator’s criminal trial for theft, w hile the malp ractice suit f iled in the 2 8 7th Distri ct Court of Bailey Coun ty w as for McCool’s failu re to appear

for R ela tor ’sforfeit ure proceed ing
. Acc ordin g to Rel ator , t he i ss ues to be resolved in his malp ractice suit resultin g f rom McCool’s failure to a ppe ar at th e forfeiture proceed ing are w hether M cC ool was obl ig ated to ap pear and w hether

he isliab le for th e damag es re sul ti ng therefrom. Acc ordin g to Rel ator’speti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , M cC ool fail ed to fil e hi s b ri ef as orde red by the trial court. On Feb ruary 23, 200 9, Relato r f iled, am ong oth er docu me nts,I n hi s pet i t i on forwr i t of m andam us, R el at orassum es hi s r equestt o t he t r i al cour t has been r ef used. 1 H e rec i t es “t he C l erk of t he C ou rtstat ed t ha t sh e h ad s ub m i t t ed t he do c um en t s t o t he j ud ge (R es po nd en t ). T hus, R el at or ’ s r equesthas been r ef used. ” However , t he l i m i t ed r ecor d f i l ed w i t h t he p eti t i on forwr i t of m andam us do es not i nc l ud e an y o r der s den y i ng h i m anyr el i ef
. I ft he t r i al cour t had r ul ed o n hi s m ot i ons, m andam us woul d no t l i e. 3 “P lai nti ff ’sR eq uestfor J ur y Tri al w it h Br ief i n Supp ort” and “P lai nti ff ’sM oti on for Leav e of the C our t t o F il e Hi s Fi rs t Amended P eti ti on.” By co rrespon dence date d M arch 16, 2 009, Rel ator reminde d the Bai ley

C ounty D is tr ict C ler k o f his ear li er fil ing s and noted that i f he did not hear

anythi ng in fourteen days, he woul d be seek ing mandamus re li ef in t hisC our t. Relato r was no tif ied by lette r from the District Clerk on March 27 , 200 9, th at all his co rre sp o n d e n ce ha d b e e n m a d e ava ila b le to th e ju d ge. Sh e ad vise d hi m th a t t h e ju d ge set s a ll hear ing date s a nd atthatti me, s he had no s etti ng s i n the ca se. 1 Ma nd amu s St and ard o f Rev iew

“ M a n d a mu s i s s u e s onlyto c o r re cta c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c re t i o n o r

t h e v i o l a t i o n o f a dut y impo sed by law w hen there is no o the r adequat e rem edy by law .” W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 833, 839 ( Tex . 199 2) ( or ig . proceed ing ), q uoti ng Johnson v. Four th Cour t of App eals , 700 S.W .2d 9 16, 9 17 (T e x. 1985)( or ig . proceed ing ). To s how enti tl ement t o mandamus re li ef, a rela tor mustsati sfythree re q uirements : (1)a leg al duty to per form; ( 2) a demand for per

formance; and (3 ) a refusal to act. Stoner v. M ass ey, 586 S.W .2d 8 43, 846 (Tex. 1979 ).T her e i s no absol ut e r i ghtt o be pr esenti n a ci v i l act i on, and access m ay be by ot herm eans such 2 a s a ff i d a v i t, d e p o s i ti o n , o r te l e p h o n e . S e e I n re R. C. R. , 230 S
. W
. 3d 423, 426 (T ex. App. –For t W or t h 20 07, n o p e t.). M e re l yre q u e s ti n g a b e n c h w a rr a n t fo r p u rp o s e s o f p ro s e c u ti n g a c i v i l l a w s u i t d o e s n o t d e m o n s tra te

3 ent i t l em entt o a bench war r ant
. I n ad di t i on t o r equest i ng a ben ch war r ant , R el at orm ust al so j ust i fy t he n eed fo r h i s p re s e n c e , w h i c h m u s t b e w e i g h e d a g a i n s t t h e p ro te c ti o n o f o u r c o rr e c ti o n a l s y s te m ’ s i n te g rit y . See I n re Z. L
. T. , 124 S. W
. 3d a t 165
. T exas co ur t s of app eal hav e r ecogni z ed a var i et yoff act or s t o be consi der ed w h e n d e c i d i n g w h e th e r to g ra n t a n i n m a te ’ s re q u e s t fo r a b e n c h w a rr a n t ad p roseque ndam : ( 1) t he co st and i nconv eni ence oft r anspor t i ng t he i nm at e t o t he co ur t r oom ; ( 2) t he se cur i t yri s k the i nm ate pr esent s t o t he cour t and pub l i c ; (3 ) whet hert he i nm at e’ s cl ai m s ar e sub st ant i al ; ( 4) whet hert he m at t er ’ s r esol ut i on ca n r easona bl ybe del ay ed unt i l t he i nm at e’ s r el ease; ( 5) whet hert he i nm at e can and wi l l off eradm i ssi bl e, non cum ul at i v e t es t i m onyt hatcann ot be eff ect i v el ypr esent ed b ydep osi t i on, t el ephon e, orsom e ot herm eans; ( 6) w het hert he i nm at e’ s pr esence i s i m por t anti n j udgi ng h i s dem eanorand cr edi bi l i t y ; ( 7) whet hert he t r i al i s to th e c o u rt o r a ju ry; a n d (8 ) th e i n m a te ’ s p ro b a b i l i tyo f s u c c e s s o n th e m e rit s . Id
. at 165 - 66. 4 Relato r asks this Court t o com pel Judge Green t o rule on his brief and mot ions in w hic h he re q uest s t o proceed to tr ial or f ina l jud g ment. W e reco g niz e that an inmat e has the constitu tiona l ri ght of access to t h e c ourts an d ma y not be den ied acce ss simply becau se he is inc arcerated. Hud son v. Pal

m er , 468 , 517 , 523 , 104 S.C t. 3194, 82 L. Ed.2d 393 ( 1984) ; In re Z.L.T. , 124 S.W .3d 163, 165 (Tex . 200 3)
. H ow ev er , an inmat e doesnot 2 hav e an absol ute r ig ht t o appea r in person in ev er y co urt proceed ing
. Id. at 165. Therefore, be fore t he tr ial co urt hasa du ty to sc hedul e a t ri al, R e lat or has the burden t o est abl is h tha t he w il l be ready to prosec ute h iscl aim. Not hin g in the document s filed in thi s Cou rt re flect s that Rel ator wo u ld be ab le to a p p e a r fo r a tr ia l se tt in g. In th e p ro ce e d in g b e l o w h e i s a p p e a rin g pr o s e. There isno ind ic ati on th at he has retai ned or int ends to ret ain counsel to re presenthis int erest s; nor doe s he suggest thathe w ill be released f rom inca rceration in the ne ar f utu re and be ab le to representhi msel f; neit h e r has he demons trated that he req uest ed and w as deni ed a bench war ra nt ad pr

osequ endam
. 35

Ma ndamus re li ef is an e xtraordin ary re m e dy
. In r e Sout hwester n Bel l Telephoen Co. , L.P
. , 235 S.W .3d 6 19, 623 ( Tex . 200 7) ( or ig ina l proceed ing ). W e dec li ne to co mpel Judg e Green t o s et a tr ial date w it hout Rel ator prov idi ng hi m the factual i nformati on nece ssaryt o do so. At this time , Relato r has notdem onst rated thatJudge Green clearly a b u s e d h is d is c re t io n o r vi o la t e d a d u ty im p o s e d b y la w. Con seq uentl y , R ela tor ’speti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i s d eni ed.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice