### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 21 - 00218 - CV

In re Armando Ramos

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Armando Ramos has filed a document styled as a notice of appeal and a motion to compel this Court to take jurisdiction in his appeal
. However, Ramos does not refer to any final and appe alable judgment or order issued by the trial cour t. Additionally , in his filings, Ramos states that he has filed several petitions for writ of manda m us with the tria l court th at have not been ruled on and requests that this Court order the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole s (the

“ Board ” ) to p erform a duty or, alternativ ely, ord er the trial court clerk to fil e his petitions for writ of mandamus to allo w the trial court to rule on them
. Because this Court on ly has ap pellate jurisdiction o ver final and appe alable judgments and orders, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § § 51.01 2 , .014 ; Lehman v. Har

- Con Cor p. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) , and because R a m os has a sked this Court to order the Board or the tr ial court clerk to perform certain acts , we will construe Ramos ’ s notice of appeal as a petition for writ of man damus , see Tex. R. App. P. 52.1

- .11 (governing original proceedings in courts of appeals) ; s ee also Surgitek, Bristol

M yers Corp. v. Abel , 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 ( Tex. 1999) (explaining that appellate courts look to substance of filing , not its title, to determine relief sought)
.2 Mandamus relief is an extraordinary reme dy. In re Southwestern Bell T el. Co
. , 235 S .W.3d 619, 623 (T ex. 2007) (orig
. proceeding )
. T he “ [r] elator bears the burden to properly request and show entit lement to mandamus relief. ” In re Carrington , 438 S.W.3d 867 , 868 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2014, orig. pro ceeding ) ; see B arnes v. St ate , 8 3 2 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding ) (noting that pro se petitioner for writ o f mandamus

“ must show himself entitled to the extraordin ary relief he seeks ” ). In this regard, the relator must provi de the reviewing court w ith a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7( a ) ( requiring relator to file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is mate rial to the relator ’ s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”), .3(k) (specifying required contents for appendix)
.

In his filings, Ramos references some type of ministerial act that he would like the Board to perfor m and indicat es that the trial court clerk h a s not filed his mandamus petitions. H owever, Ramos has not set out what the act is that he would like the Board to p e rform or otherwise provide any information or a record that would help establish whether he is entitled to

an y man damus relief. See Te x. Gov ’ t Code § 22.221 ; see also In r e Cavazos , No. 03

- 15

- 00005

- CV, 2015 WL 307290, at * 1 ( Tex. App.

— Austin Jan. 23, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (observing that petitioner had not show n that appellate court must e xercise wr it po wer over B oard of Pardons and Pa r o les in order to enforce appellate court ’ s jur isd iction); I n re P.L.M. , No. 01

- 11

- 00086

- CV, 2011 WL 12346 92, at *1 (T e x. App.

— Houston [ 1st Dist.] Mar . 31, 2011, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.) (noting that appellate cou rt s can only exercise mandamus power
o ver trial court clerk if petitioner establishes that exercise is necessary to enforce appellate court ’ s jurisdiction). Accordingly, we conclude that Ramos has not satisfied his burden of3

showing that he is entitled to t he ex traordinar y relief of a writ of mand amus and deny his petition for writ of mandamus and his motion to compel
. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a) ; In re Lovett , No. 03

- 20

- 00616

- CV, 2021 WL 81856, at *1 (T ex. App.

— Austin Jan. 7, 2021, orig . proceeding ) (mem
. op.).

___________ _______________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith Fi led: June 1 8 , 2021