### NUMBER 13 - 1 3 - 00688 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE MEERA SINGH AND SAM HOUSTON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator s , Meera Singh and Sam Houston, proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled “ Petition for Preemptory Writ of Mandamus ” in the above cause on December 9,
2013

. The document is unclear regarding the specific actions or orders complained of or the nature of the relief sought by relator s

. 2 T his Court previously dismissed an appeal filed by relators arising from th e same tr ial court proceedings

. See Singh v.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 R elators have request ed leave to file the petition. Relators ’ request for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellat e Procedure no longer require a relator to file a motion for leave to file an original proceeding. See g enerally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52 & cmt.2

Bank of Am

. , N

. A

. , No. 13

- 13

- 00406

- CV, 2013 WL 5970894 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Nov. 7, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem. op. per curiam). To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator s must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal . In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator s ha ve the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief , and this burden is a heavy one

. In re CSX Corp ., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) ; see also Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, the relator s must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator s must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the ir claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petitio n for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator s ha ve not met t h e i r burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at
135

– 36

. In fac t, at the present time, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the3

relief sought by relator s

. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 18th day of December, 2013

.