in Re: Calvin Wayne Copeland

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 4, 2004
• Docket: 13-03-00736-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-736-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

__________________________________________________________________

IN RE: CALVIN WAYNE COPELAND

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Yanez, and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

            Relator Calvin Wayne Copeland filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that his trial court civil action be removed to this Court because: (1) the district clerk did not send him a copy of the complaint he filed in the case below; (2) real parties in interest, Ernest Guajardo and E-Z Bonding, have not filed answers to discovery requests; (3) the trial court passed his motions for default judgment and summary judgment due to his incarceration; (4) the trial court did not grant his two requests for a bench warrant; (5) he has reason to believe and does believe that the case will be dismissed if not litigated in six months since the case is not set until the tenth month of the year; (6) he is concerned about “unlawful actions and manipulating” in the case; and (7) he is being denied the use of the court. We requested a response from real parties in interest. In the response, real parties in interest assert that relator has filed discovery and a motion for summary judgment with the Victoria County district clerk but deny he has effected service of either.  

         Mandamus relief is appropriate only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and there is no adequate appellate remedy. CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not shown that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                               PER CURIAM                           

Opinion delivered and filed

this 4^th day of March, 2004.