Court Opinion

ID: 9945630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 07:11:50.791749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.170096
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed February 23, 2024

                                        In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-24-00154-CV

                    IN RE JAMES BRYAN FEARS, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 439th Judicial District Court
                          Rockwall County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2-21-0769

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Molberg
      Before the Court is relator’s February 12, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus.

In his petition, relator seeks to compel the district clerk to provide him “a complete

and correct copy of trial documents.”

      Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.2, 52.3(a)–(d),

52.3(f)–(k), 52.7(a). For instance, a petition seeking mandamus relief must include

a certification stating that the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that

every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included

in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). We are bound by this Court’s
precedent requiring exceptionally strict compliance with rule 52.3(j)’s requirements.

In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator included an affidavit stating

“that all of the allegations of fact contained in [the petition] are true according to my

belief.” This certification does not satisfy the requirements of rule 52.3(j). See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig.

proceeding).

      Additionally, it is the relator’s burden to provide a record sufficient to

establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). To meet

this evidentiary burden, the rules of appellate procedure require the relator to file

with the petition certified or sworn copies of documents showing the matter

complained of and every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief

and that was filed in any underlying proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A),

52.7(a)(1); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. Certified copies may be ordered from the

appropriate court clerk. See In re Hamilton, No. 05-19-01458-CV, 2020 WL 64679,

at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Documents

become sworn copies when they are attached to an affidavit or to an unsworn

declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the person making the affidavit or

unsworn declaration has personal knowledge that the copies of the documents

attached are correct copies of the originals. See id.; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

                                          –2–
CODE ANN. § 132.001 (describing requirements for an unsworn declaration and

providing a form jurat for an unsworn declaration by an inmate). Relator’s status as

an inmate does not relieve him of his duty to comply with the rules of appellate

procedure. See In re Lee, No. 05-23-00866-CV, 2023 WL 5767562, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Sept. 7, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator failed to file any

documents with his petition that are material to his claim for relief.

      Finally, even if relator’s petition were not defective, we question whether we

would have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk as

relator asks. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b); In re Evens, No. 05-19-

01430-CV, 2020 WL 64668, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“This Court does not have jurisdiction to issue writs of

mandamus against a district clerk unless it is necessary to enforce our own

jurisdiction.”). Because relator’s petition does not meet the requirements for

consideration of mandamus relief, it is not necessary for this Court to address this

jurisdictional question.

      Based on the foregoing reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus.

                                            /Ken Molberg//
240154f.p05                                 KEN MOLBERG
                                            JUSTICE

                                         –3–