NO. 07-10-00437-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 3, 2010

IN RE PHILLIP CLARK, RELATOR

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Phillip Clark, has filed a petit ion for writ of mandamus requesting this Court order respondent, “the 364 th Judicial District Court Judge Bradley S. Underwood to ORDER the Lubbock County District Atto rney’s Office to RULE on petitioner’s MOTION for CHANGE of VENUE, which has been before the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office in EXCESS of One Hundr ed and Fourteen (114) days.” In addition, Clark requests this Court order Judge Underw ood to appoint counsel for Clark. Finally, Clark requests this C ourt order “the State” 1 and Lois Wischkaemper 2 to produce medical records relating to the diagnosis and treatment of injuries sustained by Frank Beck arising from events for which Clark was convicted of aggravated kidnapping. See

1 By this reference to “the State,” we presume that Clark is referencing the Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office.

2 Clark identifies Lois Wischkaemper as a Senior Vice President and General Counsel for University Medical Center.2 Clark v. State , 190 S.W.3d 59, 61 (Tex.App.—Amarill o 2005, no pet.). We deny the petition.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 3 identifies the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus filed in this Court. Clark has failed to comply with these requirements. Rule 52.3(a) requires that a petition must include a complete list of all parties and the names and addr esses of all counsel. Clark does list the names and addresses of the majority of the parties against whom he seeks mandamus relief. However, he does not identify Wischkaemper in this list nor does he provide her address. Further, Clark identifies this Cour t and, specifically, t he members of the panel deciding his direct appeal in the above-identified cause as “parties” to this mandamus action. Rule 52.3(b) requires that the petit ion include a table of co ntents with references to the pages of the petition and an indication of the subject ma tter of each issue or point raised in the petition. Clark = s petition includes no table of contents. Rule 52.3(c) requires that a petition include an index of authorities in which all authoritie s cited in the petition are arranged alphabetic ally and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is indicated. Clark = s petition includes no index of aut horities. Rule 52.3(d) requires a statement of the case that includes a statement of the nat ure of the underlying proceeding. Clark = s petition does not contain a stat ement of the case , and does not identify the nature of the underlying proceeding. 4 Rule 52.3(f) requires the petition

3 Further citation of Texas Rules of A ppellate Procedure will be by reference to

A Rule __. @

4 Even after carefully reviewing Clark’s 29 p age petition, it is unclear exactly what is the nature of the underlying proceeding. It is clear that Clark was convicted of3 include a concise statement of all issu es or points presented for relief. Clark = s petition includes no such statement. In fact, Clark’s petition does not identify the issues or points presented for relief. Rule 52.3(g) r equires the petition in clude a statement of facts supported by citation to competent evi dence included in the a ppendix or record. Clark’s petition does not include a statement of facts, and, because his petition did not include an appendix and no reco rd has been filed, no citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or re cord could have been provided. Rule 52.3(h) requires a clear and concise argument fo r the contentions made, wit h appropriate citations to authorities. Clark cites much authority in support of his argument. However, his argument is far from clear or concise. Rule 52.3(i) require s that the petition include a short conclusion that “clearly states the nature of the relief sought.” While Clark’s conclusion stating the nat ure of relief sought can be deciphered as above, it is not clear. Finally, Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requi res that the appendix to the pet ition include a certified or sworn copy of any order complained o f, or other document showing the matter complained of. As Clark has included no appendix to his pet ition, he has wholly failed to comply with this requirement. Each of thes e items are require d in a petition for writ of mandamus and, as Clark has failed to include them in his petition, we may not grant the relief that he requests. aggravated kidnapping at some point around April 2004. Acco rding to Clark, he filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus in Dece mber 2006. Also, in December 2006, Clark filed a motion for order for release of medical records with the trial court. Further, Clark identifies his many filings within the federal judicial system. Clark indicates that he filed his motion for change of venue on July 4, 2010. Finally, Clar k indicates that he filed a motion for appointment of counsel on August 7, 2010. Since Clark’s petition seems to seek redress relating to many of these proc eedings, the absence of a clear identification of the nature of the underly ing proceedings is a material defect in the petition.4 In the interest of judicial economy, we briefly note that, on this petition, Clark would not be entitled to the relief sought, even were we to overlook the myriad procedural defects in his petition.
Many of Clark’s requests for mandamus relief relate to parties that are outside of this Court’s mandamus authority. A court of appeals has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court judges wit hin the court of appeals = district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. T EX

. G OV = T C ODE A NN

. ' 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004). Neither t he Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office nor Lois Wischkaemper are district or county court j udges within our district. Further, Clark has failed to show how issuance of a writ of mandamus against these parties is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this Court. In re Cummins , No. 07-04-0354-CV, 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 8107 , at *2 (Tex.App.

B Amarillo Sept. 2, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.

B San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).
As to those requests that relate to J udge Underwood, Clark has wholly failed to establish that he would be entitled to the relief requested. First, any motion to transfer venue in a case would be submitted to the tr ial court for determinat ion, and nothing in the constitution or rules would allow the trial c ourt to abdicate this responsibility in favor of the district attorney’s office. As to Clark’s request for appointm ent of counsel, Clark has cited no authority that wo uld entitle him to appoint ed counsel for the underlying proceeding that he is attempting to pursue and, further, Clark has not indicated that he has filed an affidavit of indigency to es tablish the procedural predicate for the5 appointment of counsel, even if the nature of the underlyi ng proceedings would entitle him to such an appointment.

However, as Clark = s petition for writ of mandam us does not comply with the requirements of Rule 52.3, we deny the petition.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice