in Re Barry Dwyane Minfee, Relator
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINNION
No. 04-12-00421-CV
IN RE Barry Dwayne MINFEE
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Phylis Speedlin, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2012
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Barry Dwayne Minnfee seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the municipal court clerk to
file his cause. In his petition, Minnfee also alludes to the municipal court judge.
This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the Texas
Government Code, which expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of our court to: (1) writs
against a district court judge or county court judge in our district; and (2) all writs necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). Thus, this court has no
authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a municipal court judge or municipal court clerk
unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Gonzalez, No. 04-08-00652-CR, 2008
WL 4425907, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 1, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
1 This proceeding does not arise out of any pending trial court cause. 04-12-00421-CV
(discussing mandamus jurisdiction involving municipal court); In re Collard, No. 05-06-00533-
CV, 2006 WL 1075029, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 25, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
(discussing mandamus jurisdiction involving municipal court and its clerk). Minnfee does not
argue that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, nor does it appear
the relief is necessary for such purpose based on the petition. Accordingly, the petition for writ
of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Barry Dwyane Minfee, Relator (in Re Barry Dwyane Minfee, Relator) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.