Court Opinion

ID: 2921902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 02:27:48.272681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:33.177585
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-03-736-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

IN RE: CALVIN WAYNE COPELAND
__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yanez, and Castillo
Opinion Per Curiam
            Relator Calvin Wayne Copeland filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting 
that his trial court civil action be removed to this Court because: (1) the district clerk
did not send him a copy of the complaint he filed in the case below; (2) real parties in
interest, Ernest Guajardo and E-Z Bonding, have not filed answers to discovery
requests; (3) the trial court passed his motions for default judgment and summary
judgment due to his incarceration; (4) the trial court did not grant his two requests for
a bench warrant; (5) he has reason to believe and does believe that the case will be
dismissed if not litigated in six months since the case is not set until the tenth month
of the year; (6)  he is concerned about “unlawful actions and manipulating” in the
case; and (7) he is being denied the use of the court.  We requested a response from
real parties in interest.   In the response, real parties in interest assert that relator has
filed discovery and a motion for summary judgment with the Victoria County district
clerk but deny he has effected service of either.    
         Mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the
violation of a duty imposed by law and there is no adequate appellate remedy.  CSR
Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).  Relator has not shown that the
trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal.  Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
 
                                                               PER CURIAM                           

Opinion delivered and filed
this 4th day of March, 2004.