DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 13, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00078-CV

IN RE JASON ZENO, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-5136707

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

In this original proceeding, relator asks this Court to issue a writ directing the district clerk 

to file a motion for child support modification and a request to proceed in forma pauperis that 

relator purportedly sent to the district clerk for filing. 

This Court derives its writ powers from section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code, 

which states in pertinent part: 

(a) Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of 

mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.

(b) Each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of 

mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against:

(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 Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the court of 

appeals district; or
–2–

(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.

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.221(a),(b) (West Supp. 2017). The government code does not, 

however, permit an intermediate appellate court to issue a writ of mandamus directing a district 

clerk to act unless such a writ is necessary to enforce or protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction. 

See, e.g., In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939, 939 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) 

(dismissing petition for writ of mandamus that sought a writ compelling district clerk to accept a 

motion for filing). Relator has no appeal pending in this Court and does not offer any explanation 

for our need to act to protect our prospective jurisdiction. We, therefore, lack writ jurisdiction to 

direct the conduct of the district clerk. See, e.g., In re Reese, No. 05-17-00607-CV, 2017 WL 

2610039, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 16, 2017, orig. proceeding) (dismissing proceeding 

seeking writ against district clerk for refusing to file documents).

Relator also complains that the district clerk blocked relator’s attempt to seek relief from 

the district court judge. Mandamus relief is available against a trial judge if, after a district clerk 

improperly refuses to file a party’s pleadings, the party seeks appropriate relief from the trial judge 

and “the trial judge also improperly refuses to order the clerk to file the pleading or improperly 

refuses to personally file the pleading.” In re Rowe, No. 05-16-00031-CV, 2016 WL 228840, at 

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 19, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing cases). For example, when a court 

clerk refuses to accept a pleading for filing, the party may file an application for writ of mandamus 

in the trial court seeking an order from the court directing the clerk to file the pleading or file the

pleading directly with the judge through a verified motion explaining that the clerk refused to 

accept the pleading for filing. Id. at *2 (citing In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454–55 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (O’Connor, J. concurring)). Here, relator has 

not requested a writ against the district court judge, nor has relator shown that he has sought 
–3–

appropriate relief directly from the judge prior to his filing here. Although relator states that the 

district clerk refused to file an application for writ of mandamus in the trial court, relator has not 

provided this Court with proof of that attempted filing or proof of the district clerk’s refusal to file 

the application. It is relator’s burden to bring forth a record showing that he is entitled to 

mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). He has 

not done so in this case. 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. 

180078F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE