Court Opinion

ID: 2764369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-12-24 14:22:38.848242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:19.531390
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-14-00749-CV

                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                          THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                             CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

                                    IN RE JAY GOODMAN

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
                   Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

        Relator, Jay Goodman, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on

December 22, 2014, through which he requests that we order the trial court to issue

rulings on: (1) relator’s first motion to compel discovery from real party in interest, Lanell

Doss; (2) relator’s motion to rule on deemed admissions; and (3) relator’s motion for

“court’s position on expert report.

        To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must

show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by

        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.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus

relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)

(orig. proceeding); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements,

the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent

evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the

appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that

relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus

relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a)

(specifying the required contents for the record).

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

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. The

petition for writ of mandamus fails generally to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 52 and, further, relator has not furnished this Court with any supporting

documentation in the form of an appendix or record. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus filed in this cause is DENIED. See id. R. 52.8(a).

                                                               PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 23rd
day of December, 2014.

                                                2