Petition for Writ Mandamus Dismissed in Part and Denied in Part and 

Opinion filed November 29, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00937-CV

IN RE JASON CALLICOTTE, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

313th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-01966J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 18, 2016, relator Jason Callicotte filed two petitions for writ 

of mandamus in this court, both of which we will address in this opinion. See Tex. 

Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.
2

First Petition

In his first petition, relator asks our court to compel the Harris County 

District Clerk, Chris Daniel, to enter of record and provide relator certified copies 

of docket sheets and all motions, responses and orders filed in cause no. 

201601966J in the 313th Juvenile Court, Harris County, in which relator’s parental 

rights are being challenged.

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus 

jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a 

county court judge in the court of appeals' district; and (2) all writs necessary to 

enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The 

district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and 

relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is 

necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk. See In re 

Gonzalez, No. 14-16-00203-CR, 2016 WL 1237824, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] Mar. 29, 2016); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.—Waco 

1999, orig. proceeding) (“The Government Code does not confer mandamus 

jurisdiction over District Clerks upon the courts of appeals.”). 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s first petition for writ of mandamus for 

want of jurisdiction.
3

Second Petition

In his second petition, relator asks our court to compel the Honorable Glen 

Devlin of the 313th Juvenile Court of Harris County to rule on all motions filed by 

relator. Relator has not included in the mandamus record any of the motions that he

allegedly filed. Nor does the record show that relator filed these motions and 

brought them to the attention of the trial court. 

As the party seeking relief, relator has the burden of providing this court 

with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. 

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator must 

file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to 

the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). To 

be entitled to an order compelling the trial court to rule on the motions referenced 

by relator, the mandamus record must show that the motions were filed and 

brought to the attention of the trial court. See In re Foster, No. 14-16-00797-CR, 

2016 WL 6134438, at *1, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 

20, 2016, orig. proceeding); In re Layton, 257 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). Relator has not included file-stamped copies 

of the motions in the record. See In re Bishop, No. 14-06-00636-CV, 2006 WL 

2434200, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 24, 2006, orig. proceeding)

(per curiam) (mem. op.) (denying petition because there is no file stamp or other 

indication the motions were in fact filed and are pending before the trial court).
4

Because the record provided by relator does not meet these requirements, we

deny relator’s second petition for writ of mandamus. 

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Donovan.