## NO. 12

- 18

- 00254

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
NOAH CAOILI,

RELATOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator Noah Caoili, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to complain of Respondent’s failure to take judicial notice and asking this Court to direct Respondent to “presume [his] innocence of every element of the code violation and to take judicial notice of each issue raised on the motion for judicial notice[.]” 1 On September 21, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Relator that his petition failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(a)

- (d), (f), (j)

- (k), 52.7, and 9.5. We informed Relator that his petition would be referred to the Court for
d ismissal unless an amended petition correcting the defects was filed on or before September 28, 2018. Relator has not filed an amended petition correcting the errors or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice. Under rule of appellate procedure 9.5, R elator was required to serve all parties to the proceeding with a copy of his petition and to provide this Court with a certificate of service. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5(a), (e). Moreover, a party seeking mandamus relief must bring forward all that
is neces sary to establish his claim for mandamus relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52. This entails filing a petition that includes the identity of parties and counsel, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the case, issues presented, and a certification. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(a)

- (d), (f), (j). Relator’s petition d oes not comply with these requirements.

1 Respondent is the Honorable Floyd T. Getz, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 3 of Smith County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.A relator must also file an appendix and a record as part of his petition in an original

proceeding. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k), 52.7. Specifically, a relator must file (1) a certified or sworn copy of every docu ment that is material to his claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding; and (2) “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.7(a). It is a relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus
relief. See In re Moseley , No. 05

- 17

- 01125

- CV, 2017 WL 4402062, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Oct. 4, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Absent a record, this Court cannot conduct a meaningful review of Relator’s request for relief. See id

. Accordingly, because Relator’s p etition fails to comply with the appellate rules, he presents nothing for this Court to review. 2 We, therefore, deny his petition for writ of mandamus. All pending motions are overruled as moot

.

. Opinion delivered October 10, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

2 We also note that on September 24, 2018, the Clerk of this Court requested the filing fee be rem itted on or before September 28. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Appellant has not paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the September 24 notice.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 10 , 2018

NO. 12

- 18

- 00254

- CV

NOAH CAOILI, Relator V.

HON. FLOYD T. GETZ , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Noah Caoili; who is the relator in Cause No. 003

- 82127

- 18, pending on the docket of the County Court
at Law No

. 3 of Smith County , Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein

on September 21, 2018, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of
this Court that the writ should not i ssue , 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.