Court Opinion

ID: 3075729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:13:07.503457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:34.150450
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            _________________
                             NO. 09-13-00144-CV
                            _________________

                       IN RE MICHAEL SCOTT NEIL

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator, Michael Scott Neil, moves to enforce the writ of mandamus issued

by this Court on March 18, 2013. See In re Neil, No. 09-13-00144-CV, 2013 Tex.

App. LEXIS 4047, at *2 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 28, 2013, orig. proceeding).

The writ compelled the performance of a duty imposed by law in connection with

the holding of the May 2013 election of the Board of Trustees of the Beaumont

Independent School District. Id.; see Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061 (West 2010);

see also In re Rodriguez (Rodriguez I), 397 S.W.3d 817, 821-22 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2013, orig. proceeding). As alternative relief, Neil requests that this

                                       1
Court issue a new writ of mandamus in connection with the holding of an election

in November 2013.

      We addressed the identical issues and requests for relief in a separate

opinion for a companion case. See In re Rodriguez (Rodriguez II), No. 09-13-

00115-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS ____ (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. ___, 2013,

orig. proceeding). As explained in Rodriguez II, our March 18, 2013 writ of

mandamus related to an election that ultimately did not occur; additionally, a

November 2013 election remains subject to on-going litigation in both federal and

state courts. Id. For the same reasons stated in Rodriguez II, we refrain from

exercising any mandamus authority and do not address the merits of the parties’

claims at this time. Id. Accordingly we deny the motion to enforce and dismiss

the mandamus petition without prejudice.

      PETITION DISMISSED.

                                                        PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 19, 2013
Opinion Delivered August 1, 2013

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

                                       2