in Re: Clyde Nubine

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 27, 2008
• Docket: 13-08-00507-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-08-00507-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN RE CLYDE NUBINE ____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Clyde Nubine, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

causes on August 12, 2008. Relator requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus

ordering Anna Marie Silvas, the District Clerk of Bee County, to file and process his

pleadings.

We conclude this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This

court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that

1 See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions). issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX . GOV'T CODE ANN . §

22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig.

proceeding); see also In re Hayes, NO. 13-05-454-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5706, *2

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, orig. proceeding).

When a district clerk refuses to accept a pleading presented for filing, the party

presenting the document can seek relief by filing an application for writ of mandamus in the

district court, or attempting to file the pleading directly with a district judge, explaining in a

verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. See In re Bernard,

993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)

(O’Connor, J., concurring).

Relator has neither alleged nor shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby

DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Pending motions, if any,

are likewise DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this 27th day of August, 2008.