in Re Charles R. Blake
This text of in Re Charles R. Blake (in Re Charles R. Blake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-22-00148-CV
IN RE CHARLES R. BLAKE
Original Proceeding ______________
From the 380th District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court No. 380-51262-2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION
As best we can tell from the cryptic description provided in what we have
designated as a petition for writ of mandamus, filed by the Clerk of this Court on May 10,
2022, Charles R. Blake seems to be seeking assistance from this Court to compel the
District Clerk of Collin County, the 380th District Court of Collin County, or the Fifth
Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas, to file his pleadings for the purpose of holding the
mother of his child to be in contempt and for enforcement of a prior court order.
In his petition, Blake gives various dates he has sent requests to the trial court and
clerk, as well as other dates he sent requests to the Fifth Court of Appeals. He alleges that
their refusal to accept his tendered filings is a violation of his "constitutional rights and [his] legal rights per a court order." Blake asserts that because the case originated in a
trial court in the Tenth Court of Appeals district, we have jurisdiction to grant relief. We
disagree.
We do not have mandamus jurisdiction to compel a district clerk to take any action
except in rare circumstances which are not present here. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 22.221(a),
(b); see also In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d 874, 879 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding).
More importantly, this Court has no jurisdiction to compel any court or clerk outside this
Court’s district to do any act. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 22.201(k). Neither Collin County
nor the Fifth Court of Appeals is within our district. Id.
Accordingly, Blake’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed May 25, 2022 [OT06]
In re Blake Page 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re Charles R. Blake, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-r-blake-texapp-2022.