NO. 12-23-00323-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: 

EDWIN E. BUCKNER, JR.,

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Edwin E. Buckner, Jr., acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to complain of 

Respondent Gregg County Clerk Michelle Gilley’s failure to file his answer in a probate case.1

This Court’s mandamus authority is limited to (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, 

statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district 

court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

Chapter 52 in the court of appeals district; (3) an associate judge of a district or county court 

appointed by a judge under Chapter 201, Family Code, in the court of appeals district for the 

judge who appointed the associate judge; or (4) a situation in which a writ of mandamus is 

necessary to protect the Court’s jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West 

2005). The County Clerk is not a judge over which this Court possesses mandamus authority.

In re Emerson, Nos. 12-20-00068-CR & 12-20-00069-CR, 2020 WL 1536510, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Tyler Mar. 31, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 

22.221(a), (b)); see In re Dotson, No. 12-20-00205-CV, 2020 WL 5552626 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

Sept. 16, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing mandamus proceeding 

against district clerk for want of jurisdiction). Nor does the record demonstrate that issuance of a 

1 Judith Janet Thomas is the Real Party in Interest.
2

writ of mandamus against the County Clerk is necessary to protect this Court’s jurisdiction. See 

generally In re Vargas, No. 01-12-00351-CV, 2012 WL 1454550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus

proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addressing complaint that clerk 

refused to file petition was not necessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction). For this reason, 

we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.2

Opinion delivered January 10, 2024.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 Additionally, Relator’s petition fails to comply with appellate Rules 52.2, 52.3(a)-(h), and (j)-(k), 

and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2 (designation of parties); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (form and contents of petition);

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (record). The Clerk of this Court notified Relator of the defects and gave a deadline by which 

to correct them. Appellant did not correct the defects. 
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

NO. 12-23-00323-CV

EDWIN E. BUCKNER, JR., 

Relator

V.

MICHELLE GILLEY, 

Respondent 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by 

Edwin E. Buckner, Jr.; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00323-CV, arising out 

of trial court cause number 2023-0097-E, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law No 

2 of Gregg County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on 

December 20, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this 

Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED 

that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied. 

By per curiam opinion. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.