in Re Dallas James Moore, Relator

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________

No. 07-18-00435-CV ________________________

IN RE DALLAS JAMES MOORE, RELATOR

Original Proceeding Arising From Proceedings Before the 320th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 73,321-D; Honorable Don Emerson, Presiding

February 25, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.

Relator, Dallas James Moore, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Don Emerson to rule on his petition

for writ of habeas corpus. This court takes judicial notice that the Honorable Don Emerson retired effective December 31, 2018.1 The Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon now holds the

office as Judge Emerson’s successor.

Rule 7.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for automatic

substitution of a public official in an appeal or original proceeding if the original party

ceases to hold office before the appeal’s or original proceeding’s final disposition. TEX.

R. APP. P. 7.2(a). Judge Sirmon is now substituted as the Respondent in this original

proceeding.

Rule 7.2(b) provides that an original proceeding must be abated “to allow the

successor to reconsider the original party’s decision. In all other cases, the suit will not

abate, and the successor will be bound by the appellate court’s judgment or order as if

the successor was the original party.” TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). In this proceeding, Relator

complains that Judge Emerson failed to issue a ruling in his habeas corpus proceeding

by which he claimed he was being illegally detained by the Potter County Sheriff’s

Department.

No decision being made by Judge Emerson, there is nothing for his successor to

“reconsider” and therefore, no need to abate this proceeding. Regarding the merits of

Relator’s request for mandamus relief, we observe he failed to comply with the

requirements of Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.2 We recognize

1 This court has the power to take judicial notice when the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute. In re Bramlett, 07-09-0113-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 3177, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo April 30, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing City of Houston v. Todd, 41 S.W.3d 289, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).

2 Relator requests that this court contact the Potter County District Clerk for a copy of his writ of

habeas corpus and other necessary documents. The burden to provide a sufficient record for the requested relief falls on Relator and this court has no duty to obtain the necessary documents. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).

2 that pro se filings may be reviewed less stringently than those filed by attorneys; Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972); however, a party

proceeding pro se is not exempt from complying with rules of procedure. See Wheeler v.

Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d

181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.