Court Opinion

ID: 9958064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 17:13:50.873249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:43.633921
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-24-00170-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                  IN RE JOSHUA YEOMANS

                      ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña
              Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

        By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Joshua Yeomans seeks to compel

the judge presiding over relator’s civil retaliation case, filed in federal district court in cause

number 2:23-CV-00173, to respond to relator’s motions and pleadings.

         1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the
differences between opinions and memorandum opinions).
       Article V, § 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the

courts of appeals, and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction,

original and appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). The main

source of original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas

Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668,

671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that

an intermediate appellate court may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges

“in the court of appeals district” and any “writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the

court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b).

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that it should be dismissed. We lack jurisdiction to issue a writ against a

federal judge. See id. § 22.221(b); see also In re Newsome, No. 03-13-00009-CV, 2013

WL 238713, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 18, 2013, orig. proceeding [mand. denied])

(mem. op.) (stating in relevant part that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue mandamus

relief against a federal district judge); In re Costley, No. 10-12-00290-CV, 2012 WL

3629459, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 23, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A state

court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a federal

administrative law judge.”); In re Aranda, No. 08-04-00167-CV, 2004 WL 1719244, at *1

(Tex. App.—El Paso July 29, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that the

government code “does not grant this Court any authority to issue a writ against a federal

judge”). Further, relator does not assert that the requested relief is necessary to enforce

                                                 2
our appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we dismiss

the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                             NORA L. LONGORIA
                                                             Justice

Delivered and filed on the
4th day of April, 2024.

                                               3