Court Opinion

ID: 4388635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-18 15:50:58.131457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:50:46.261465
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               _________________

                                NO. 09-19-00107-CV
                               _________________

                   IN RE MARK ANTHONY PETERSIMES

________________________________________________________________________

                               Original Proceeding
               435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. 02-05-03239-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this original proceeding, Mark Anthony Petersimes asks this Court to order

the trial court to vacate an order sealing documents filed in a civil commitment

proceeding. 1 See generally Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.143 (West 2017)

(certain records filed in a civil commitment proceeding must be sealed); see also

      1
         Petersimes filed a procedurally defective petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.
Additionally, he failed to certify that he served a copy of the petition on the State as
the real party in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We use Rule 2, however, to look
beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
                                            1
Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a.2(a)(2) (excluding from Rule 76a documents in court files to

which access is otherwise restricted by law).

      A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct

a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal.

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

proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding). After considering the petition and examining the exhibits contained in

the appendix, we conclude that Petersimes has not established that he is entitled to

mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                                                PER CURIAM

Submitted on April 17, 2019
Opinion Delivered April 18, 2019

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

                                         2