### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 477 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ED JAYCOX

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez , Garza , and Benavides Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator , Ed Jaycox, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to set aside the trial court’s order of June 16, 2014 dismissing relator’s lawsuit against his appointed counsel as frivolous unde r Chapters 13 and 14 of the Texas Civil

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 opi nions and memorandum opinions).2

Practice and Remedies Code. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN . ch. 13, 14 (West , Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S. )

. 2 To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator 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 has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief , a nd this burden is a heavy one

. In re CSX Corp ., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding) ; see 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 must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear an d 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 must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support t he 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 petition for writ of mandamus, is of th e opinion that relator ha s not shown either that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal, or, based on the paucity of documents provided, that the trial court abused its

2 Relator has an appeal currently pending in this Court in our cause number 13

- 13

- 00639. Relator has also had several other matters filed with this Court which have been previously resolved. See, e.g., Jaycox v. State , No. 13

- 13

- 00214

- CR, 2014 WL 3796412, at *1 (Tex. App

— Corpus Christi July 31, 2014 , no pet. ) (mem. op.); In re Jaycox , No. 13

- 14

- 00399

- CR, 2014 WL 3538895 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi July 16, 2014 , orig. proceeding ) (per curiam mem. op.); In re Jaycox , No. 13

- 14

- 00398

- CR, 2014 WL 3538890 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi July 15, 2014, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.).3

discretion in dismissing the case. Accordingly, t he petition for writ of mandamus filed in th is cause is DENIED. See id. R. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 25th day of August, 2014

.