Court Opinion

ID: 4455702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-11-14 15:14:06.86725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:40.739890
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-19-00369-CV
                               __________________

                       IN RE MICHAEL W. BOHANNAN

__________________________________________________________________

                           Original Proceeding
           435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 08-07-06907-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator Michael W. Bohannan filed this original mandamus proceeding, in

which he complains that the trial judge refused to rule on his properly filed pro se

motion to strike the trial court’s abatement order, 1 the trial court violated the Open

Courts provision of the Texas Constitution by abating the case, and the trial court

      1
       The mandamus record reflects that the trial court abated Bohannan’s civil
commitment as a sexually violent predator until Bohannan is eligible for release
from the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Health &
Safety Code Ann. § 841.150(a).
                                      1
violated his rights to due process by abating the case without notice to him.

Bohannan did not provide a copy of his pro se motion to strike the trial court’s

abatement order.

      Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation

of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). After reviewing the mandamus record and

petition, we conclude that Bohannan has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by

the trial court for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                        PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 13, 2019
Opinion Delivered November 14, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

                                          2