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 

dismissal 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, Relator 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 

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5(a), (e). Moreover, a party seeking mandamus relief must bring forward all that 

is necessary to establish his claim for mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. 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. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)-

(d), (f), (j). Relator’s petition does 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7. Specifically, a relator must file (1) a certified or 

sworn copy of every document 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.” TEX. R. APP. 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 petition 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 remitted on or 

before September 28. See TEX. R. APP. 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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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 issue, 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.