Court Opinion

ID: 9554482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 07:08:14.887145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:26.384955
License: Public Domain

DENIED and Opinion Filed August 1, 2023

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00747-CV

                    IN RE BRADLEY B. MILLER, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-02616-Y

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Before the Court is relator’s July 28, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus. We

recently issued two opinions dismissing in part and denying in part nearly identical

petitions that relator filed with this Court. See In re Miller, No. 05-23-00725-CV,

2023 WL 4782681, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 27, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.); In re Miller, No. 05-23-00668-CV, 2023 WL 4617043, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas July 19, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

      Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record
to show he is entitled to 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).

      To the extent relator complains about the district judge’s June 8, 2023 order

on relator’s motion to compel discovery after de novo hearing, we deny the petition.

Based on our review of relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude

relator has failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

      To the extent relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to provide a

reporter’s record, we conclude that relator did not satisfy his burden to provide a

sufficient record and failed to provide any argument with appropriate citations to

authorities and to the appendix or record to support the requested relief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(h), (k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837. Accordingly, we

deny this portion of relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

      To the extent relator asks for various declaratory and injunctive relief, we

conclude that we lack jurisdiction and dismiss these portions of the petition. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; see, e.g., In re Day Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 05-20-00643-

CV, 2020 WL 5036145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 2, 2020, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.) (injunctive relief); In re Martin, No. 05-18-00542-CV, 2018 WL

2147949, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 10, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(declaratory relief).

                                         –2–
      To the extent relator complains about the associate judge’s May 1, 2023 order,

relator’s complaints were rendered moot by the district judge’s ruling following a de

novo hearing. See Vara v. Vara, 645 S.W.3d 818, 823 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022,

pet. denied). We lack subject-matter jurisdiction over a dispute that has become

moot. See In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 311–12 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, orig.

proceeding).

                                           /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                           BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                           JUSTICE
230747F.P05

                                        –3–