In Re: Bradley B. Miller v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 19, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00668-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and Opinion Filed July 19, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00668-CV

IN RE BRADLEY B. MILLER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-02616-Y

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Goldstein Before the Court is relator’s July 10, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

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

proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record

to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)

(orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a).

To the extent relator complains about the associate judge’s May 1, 2023 order

on relator’s motion to compel discovery and the district judge’s purported rulings on relator’s motion to compel, we conclude after reviewing the petition and record

before us that relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure and relator did not satisfy his burden to provide a sufficient record. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1)–(2); Walker, 827 S.W.3d at 837. Because

relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief, we deny these portions of relator’s

petition. See In re Jones, No. 05-23-00492-CV, No. 05-23-00493-CV, 2023 WL

4101440, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

To the extent relator asks this Court to compel (1) the district judge to rule on

relator’s motion to compel and (2) the trial court to provide a reporter’s record, we

conclude that relator did not satisfy his burden to provide a sufficient record and

failed to provide any argument with appropriate citations to authorities and to the

appendix or record to support the requested relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h),

(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); Walker, 827 S.W.3d at 837. Accordingly, we deny these

portions of relator’s petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

To the extent relator simply asks for various declaratory and injunctive relief,

we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and dismiss these portions of the petition. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; see, e.g., In re Day Inv. Grp., LLC, No. 05-20-

00643-CV, 2020 WL 5036145, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 2, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (injunctive relief); In re Martin, No. 05-18-00542-CV, 2018

–2– WL 2147949, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 10, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(declaratory relief).

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE

230668F.P05

–3–