IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 FORT WORTH DIVISION

DONALD DENERAL WALKER, §

(TDCJ No.01563198), §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-549-O 

 § 

SHAREN WILSON, § 

District Attorney, § 

Tarrant County, Texas, §

 §

Respondent. § 

 OPINION AND ORDER

Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate/Petitioner Donald Deneral Walker filed this 

suit through a document entitled “Private Letter Rogatory from the Private Sector to the Public 

Administrative/Commercial under the Hague Convention Title 18 U.S.C. § 1781.” ECF No. 1. 

After review and consideration of this pleading, the Court finds that all Walker’s requests for 

relief must be dismissed with prejudice. 

Walker is presently a prisoner housed in the TDCJ-Ellis Unit. ECF No. 1. He is serving a 

30-year sentence for his 2009 conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Tarrant 

County, Texas, Case NO. 1147908R before the Criminal District Court Number Three of Tarrant 

County, Texas.1

As a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A, which requires a district court to review a complaint from a prisoner seeking relief from a 

1Walker previously challenged his conviction through a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court

Walker v. Lumpkin, No. 4:21-CV-723-O (Aug. 25, 2021).The Court takes judicial notice of its own 

records in that prior case. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(a) and (b)(1). 

Case 4:22-cv-00549-O Document 5 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 34
2

governmental entity, officer, or employee as soon as possible after docketing. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 

1915A(a). Because Walker also apparently seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, this civil action is 

also subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Both § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A provide 

for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint or any portion thereof, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails 

to state claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). 

A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based 

on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A claim lack an arguable basis in fact when 

it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 327-28. A complaint fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, 

plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to “raise the right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mere “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action” will not suffice to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Id. After review and consideration of Walker’s suit and the applicable law, the Court determines 

that all claims must be dismissed under the authority of these provisions.

First, Walker seeks for this Court to issue a “Letter Rogatory.” ECF No. 1. A Letter 

Rogatory is used to effect service of process in a foreign country. See Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure Rule 4(f)(2)(B). The Respondent in this case is located in Fort Worth, Texas. Thus, 

any reference to a “Letter Rogatory” is inapplicable. Second, Walker cites to an inaccurate 

Case 4:22-cv-00549-O Document 5 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 35
3

citation for a “Hague Convention” by citing to “18 U.S.C. § 1781.” That statute does not exist.2

Instead, the Court assumes Walker refers to the Hague Conviction on the Taking of Evidence 

Abroad in a Civil or Commercial Matters, Mar. 18, 1970. 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 7444, 

codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1781 (“Hague Convention”). But again, that treaty relates to foreign 

discovery, and has nothing to do with gathering information from the Respondent in this case. 

Walker’s claims for such relief under the Hague Convention must be dismissed. 

Furthermore, and in the alternative, to the extent Walker seeks to have this Court issue a 

writ of mandamus directing a state official to take actions with regard to his underlying 

conviction, such claim fares no better. Although the all writs act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provides that 

a court “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] respective jurisdiction,” the 

federal writ of mandamus has been abolished by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b), and a 

federal district court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to command state courts 

and their officers where mandamus is the only relief sought. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b); see also 

Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Thus, as 

Walker has also has not shown that mandamus relief is available to him in this Court, that claim 

must be also be dismissed.3 

2Walker’s phrasing appears similar to the filing of a “Letter Rogatory for Relief under the Hague 

Convention Title 18 § 1781" in another case. See Mobley v. MCS Financial Global Investments, LLC., 

Civ. A. No. 19-0194, 2019 WL 3226923, *1 (W.D. La. Jul. 17, 2019). There, the court directed such 

document be stricken from the record. Id. 

3Even if Walker could invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, he would not be entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 

403 (1976). A mandamus petitioner must demonstrate (1) a clear right to relief, (2) a clear duty by the 

respondent to do the act requested, and (3) the lack of any other adequate remedy. See In re Stone, 118 

F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1997)(citations omitted). Walker has not demonstrated any of these elements.

Case 4:22-cv-00549-O Document 5 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 36
4

It is therefore ORDERED that all grounds for relief sought in this civil action by Donald 

Deneral Walker are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and 

alternatively under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). 

SO ORDERED on this 7th day of July, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00549-O Document 5 Filed 07/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 37