Court Opinion

ID: 9646010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 06:09:17.287942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:26.735070
License: Public Domain

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed August 18, 2023

                                     S   In the
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 No. 05-23-00798-CV

                 IN RE CARLOS ENRIQUE LORDUY, Relator

          Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. DF-23-08291

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Carlyle, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      Before the Court is relator’s August 15, 2023 “Motion for Preliminary

Injunction,” which we construe as a petition for writ of injunction. Relator asks this

Court to (1) “grant a preliminary injunction ordering the immediate return of [a]

child to” relator’s custody pending the resolution of the underlying case and

(2) “investigate the circumstances surrounding the denial of visitation and to ensure

the child’s safety and well-being moving forward.”

      A petition for a writ of injunction filed in an appellate court must comply with

the requirements of rule 52. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (“Each court of

appeals . . . may issue . . . all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the
court.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 (“An original proceeding seeking extraordinary

relief—such as [an] . . . injunction . . . —is commenced by filing a petition with the

clerk of the appropriate appellate court.”).

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

Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(a)–(h), (j)–(k),

52.7(a). For instance, relator’s petition is not certified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j);

In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). The

petition is also not supported by an appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); Butler, 270 S.W.3d at 759. 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). Without a certified

petition and appendix or record, relator has not carried his burden. See Butler, 270

S.W.3d at 758–59.

       Additionally, to the extent relator seeks injunctive relief, this Court has

authority to “issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce the

jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). Relator has an appeal

pending in this Court in Case No. 05-23-00625-CV. But relator’s requested

injunctive relief is not necessary to enforce this Court’s jurisdiction in relator’s

pending appeal, and relator otherwise asserts no appropriate reason for us to enter

injunctive relief.

                                          –2–
      To the extent relator asks this Court to conduct an investigation, our original

jurisdiction does not include jurisdiction to conduct such investigations. See TEX.

CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221.

      Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

                                           /Cory L. Carlyle/
                                           CORY L. CARLYLE
                                           JUSTICE

230798F.P05

                                        –3–