Court Opinion

ID: 3114798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 07:27:33.71797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:38.285263
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-10-0224-CV
					 
	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	AUGUST 5, 2010
	______________________________

	In re: KENNETH HICKMAN-BEY,

				Relator
	_______________________________

	On Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus
	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
	Pending before the court is the application of Kenneth Hickman-Bey, for a writ of mandamus.  He asks us to order the Honorable Ron Enns, 69th District Court, to schedule a hearing and act upon various motions pending in a suit he initiated.  The motions include "Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment," and "Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue."  We dismiss the petition as moot.
	On June 22, 2010, we directed Judge Enns to respond to relator's petition for mandamus.  On July 14, 2010, Judge Enns filed his response wherein he granted relator's motion for teleconferencing regarding his "unresolved pleadings."  A copy of the document evincing the action is attached to this opinion as Exhibit A.       
	Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the issues raised, and the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.  See In re Duncan, 62 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex. App. - Houston [1[st] Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).   This dismissal is without prejudice to the relator's right to seek a writ of mandamus should unreasonable delay arise in the scheduling of the teleconference and ruling upon the aforesaid motions and pleadings. 

							Per Curiam