## COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE: L AKEI TH RAQI B A MI RSHARI F, Relator. § § § § § § § No. 08-11-00277- CV AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG
I N MANDA MUS

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Relator, a T exas prison inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial judge to rule

on a motion for defa

ult judgme nt. A writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court clearly abused its discretion and if the rela tor has no adequate reme dy by appea l. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). When a motion has been proper ly filed and broug ht to the court’s attention, t h e ac t of giving consideration to and ruling upon the m otion is a minist eria l act, and mandamus may issue to compel the court to rule. See In re Chavez , 62 S.W .3d 225, 228 (Tex. A

pp.--Ama rillo 2001, orig

. proce eding ). To be entitled to ma ndamus relief on this
g round, a rela tor must show that the motion wa s b ro u gh t to the trial court’s attention; the district cler k’s knowledg e ca

nnot be imputed to the trial court. See id. Any mandamus petition must be acc ompanied by an appendix o r rec ord containing “a

cer tified or sworn c opy

of any

. . . document showing t he matter complained of.” T E X


## . R. A P P


## . P. 52.3(k)( 1)(A) (appe ndix ); see also T E X


## . R. A P P


## . P. 52.7(a) (1) (re cord)

. The rela tor “must cer tify that

. . . ev er y fac tual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidenc e included i n t h e

## appendix or rec ord.” T E X


## . R. A P P


## . P. 52.3(j).

Relator’s mandamus petition was fil ed o n September 19, 2011. There in, he states that he filed his motion for defa

ult judgme nt on J uly 20, 2010, b y p l ac ing the motion into the prison’s outgoing m ail sy stem, addre ssed to the district cler k. Attache d to the mandamus petition is an

unsworn copy of h i s cover letter to the district cler k, asking that the cler

k bring the motion to the court’s attention. Relator also alleg es that, on Oc tober 11, 2010, the defe ndants filed a motion for leave to file a late answe r and that the trial court has not ruled on either motion. Relator claims that “he w rote the court and court coordinator .

. . in an ef fort to have his moti on considere d and rule d
on, but to no avail.” He does not provide the dates or number of times that he did this, nor does he include any evidenc e to support his cl ai m . I n s t ead, he reque sts that we consider him to be in “substantive compliance ” with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e beca use cer tain documents have been lost. Relator states that on J une 21, 2011, he mailed a mandamus petition to this Court, but the Court did not rece ive it and it was not returne d to him. As a result, he c laims that “ce rtain motions filed by Relator, E.g

. motion for defa ult judgme nt; and letters reque sting motion be hear d,” which wer e attache d to the mandamus petition, “have been fore ver lost.” I n fac t, the Court has the J une 21 mandamus petition, but it does not have any attachme nts. We there fore do not consider 1 

## Relator’s pe tition t o be in compliance with the applicable rules.

T h i s p e t i t i o n w a s n o t f

i l e d b e c a u s e R e l a t o r h a s b e e n d e c l a r e d a v e x a t i o u s l i t i g a n t i n S w i s h e r C o u n t y a n d i n 1 D a l l a s C o u n t y , a n d i t a p p e a r e d t h a t h e w a s s u b j e c t t o a p r e - f i l i n g o r d e r t h a t p r o h i b i t s h i m f r o m c o m m e n c i n g a n y n e w l i t i g a t i o n w i t h o u t t h e l o c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e j u d g e ’ s p e r m i s s i o n . S e e h t t p : / / w w w . c o u r t s . s t a t e . t x . u s / o c a / v e x a t i o u s l i t i g a n t s . a s p . A f t e r R e l a t o r d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e S w i s h e r C o u n t y c o u r t d i d n o t e n t e r a p r e - f i l i n g o r d e r a n d t h a t t h e D a l l a s C o u n t y c o u r t ’ s p r e - f

i l i n g o r d e r h a s b e e n r e v e r s e d , t h i s C o u r t f i l e d t h e i n s t a n t m a n d a m u s p e t i t i o n . S e e I n r e A m i r - S h a r i

f , N o . 0 7

– 1 1

– 0 0 2 9 4

– C V , 2 0 1 1 W L 3 5 6 8 9 4 0 , a t * 1 n . 2 ( T e x . A p p . - - A m a r i l l o A u g . 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 , o r i g . p r o c e e d i n g ) ( m e m . o p . ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c l e r k ’ s r e c o r d f o r t h e S w i s h e r C o u n t y c a s e d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a p r e - f i l i n g o r d e r ) ; A m i r - S h a r i f v
. Z e l l e r , N o . 0 7

– 1 0

– 0 2 4 4

– C V , 2 0 1 1 W L 6 9 1 3 7 8 , a t * 1 ( T e x . A p p . - - A m a r i l l o F e b

. 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , p e t

. d e n i e d ) ( m e m . o p . ) ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e S w i s h e r C o u n t y c o u r t h a d f o u n d R e l a t o r t o b e a v e x a t i o u s l i t i g a n t ) ; A m i r - S h a r i f v
. Q u i c k T

r i p C o r p
. , N o . 0 5

– 0 9

– 0 1 4 9 7

– C V , 2 0 1 1 W L 1 3 6 7 0 4 2 , a t * 1 ( T e x . A p p . - - D a l l a s A p r i l 1 2 , 2 0 1 1 , n o p e t

. ) ( m e m . o p . ) ( r e v e r s i n g v e x a t i o u s l i t i g a n t o r d e r b e c a u s e R e l a t o r d i d n o t r e c e i v e p r o p e r n o t i c e )

. 

## 2

## We also note that on Novembe r 12, 2009, Relator w as found to be a vexatious litiga

nt a nd

a pre- filing order was enter ed. See http:// w w w . c o u r ts

. s ta te

. tx.us/oc a/vexatiousli tiga nts.asp. Relator claims that he serve d the defe ndants in this case in Marc h 2010. I t thus ap p ears that Relator attempted to commence this suit while he was subject to the pre- filing order

. His mandamus petition does not indicate that he obtained permi s s i o n b efor e fili ng the s uit. Although the pre- filing order

was re verse d on April 12, 2011, Relator ha s not demonstrated that the tria l court had a minist eria l duty to rule on any motions while it was in eff ect, nor has he claimed that he reque sted a ruling afte r the pre- filing order was reve rsed. See Amir-Sharif v. Quick Trip Corp. , No. 05–09–01497–CV, 2011 WL 1367042, at *1 (Te x . App.--D allas April 12, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). Relator has not show n himself to be entitled to the relief soug ht. Accor dingly , the petition for wr it of mandamus is denied.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice October 26, 2011 Be fore McClure, C.J ., Rivera, J., and Chew, C.J ., (Senior)

3