Court Opinion

ID: 3068749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-15 23:58:28.237423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:33.492928
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-15-00055-CV
                              _________________

                         IN RE NATHANIEL JONES III

________________________________________________________________________

                               Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Nathaniel Jones III complains that the trial court abused its discretion by

failing to rule on Jones’s motions in a civil suit on file before the 172nd District

Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Jones filed an original petition asserting claims

against two prison employees in their individual capacities. Jones has not shown

that he requested that citation issue, provided an address for service on either

defendant, filed a declaration of inability to pay costs with his petition, or filed a

motion to compel issuance of citation. See Johnson v. McAdams, 781 S.W.2d 451,

452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus

                                          1
relief when the petition failed to show the trial court breached a duty to compel the

clerk to issue citation).

       Relator’s unsupported claim that he mailed the trial court a copy of a request

for issuance of citation that Jones directed to the clerk does not establish that Jones

requested a ruling by the trial court. Jones filed a written request for a final order,

but it appears that Jones filed it with the clerk without asking that the request be

presented to the trial court and without submitting a proposed final order for the

judge’s signature. To establish abuse of discretion by failing to rule on a motion,

the relator must show that he asked the trial court to rule. See In re Querishi, No.

14-13-00300-CV, 2013 WL 1845770, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr.

30, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We deny the petition for writ of

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

       PETITION DENIED.

                                                            PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 18, 2015
Opinion Delivered March 19, 2015

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

                                          2