Court Opinion

ID: 9892501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 10:09:37.362445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:20.431622
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00616-CV

                                    In re Sabian A. Alexander

                      ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Relator Sabian A. Alexander has filed an ambiguously captioned appellate

submission purporting to consolidate multiple writ petitions, complaining inter alia of an “order

to administer psychoactive medication” and seeking unspecified relief. Having reviewed the

filing, we treat the submission as a petition for writ of mandamus and deny the petition. See Tex.

R. App. P. 52.8(a).

               The petition does not make clear the precise nature of the relief sought nor the

person or persons to whom the requested writs should issue. The caption refers to Travis County

Probate Court No. 1, and the body of the petition makes reference to the 427th District Court in

Travis County, Texas, both of which courts are within this Court’s appellate district. Alexander

has not provided this Court with any record, however, nor any copies of motions or the

orders thereon, let alone certified or file-stamped copies to show that a properly filed motion

is pending before either of the referenced courts. To the extent Alexander seeks relief that is

within this Court’s jurisdiction to grant, it is Alexander’s burden to properly request and establish

entitlement to such relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Roberts,
No. 03-12-00513-CV, 2012 WL 3629367, at *2 (Tex. App.— Austin Aug. 21, 2012, no pet.)

(mem. op.); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). “In this regard, the relator must provide

the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief.” Roberts,

2012 WL 3629367, a t *1 (citing Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d

659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)

(specifying required contents for appendix), 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file with petition “a

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and

that was filed in any underlying proceeding”).

               Based on his failure to provide any record, we conclude that Alexander has failed

to show an entitlement to relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

                                             __________________________________________
                                             Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Filed: October 20, 2023

                                                 2