In Re Daniel De Oliveira, MD v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 9, 2024
• Docket: 13-24-00392-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-24-00392-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE DANIEL DE OLIVEIRA, M.D.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

Relator Daniel De Oliveira, M.D. filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in

which he contends, inter alia, that (1) the trial court lacks jurisdiction over him; (2) the trial

court has abused its discretion by ordering the case to arbitration, failing to compel a party

to produce evidence, failing to rule on motions in a reasonable time, and violating his

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). constitutional rights “due to lack of due process and judicial misconduct”; and (3) various

orders are invalid and unenforceable.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Alternatively, when a trial court issues an order

“beyond its jurisdiction,” mandamus relief is appropriate because its order is void ab initio.

In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per

curiam)).

The relator bears the burden to show that it is entitled to mandamus relief. In re

H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In

re Vara, 668 S.W.3d 827, 828 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2023, orig. proceeding); see also

Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements,

the relator “must state concisely all issues or points presented for relief,” a statement of

facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,”

2 and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with

appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish an appendix and record

sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re

Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding);

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix), R. 52.7(a)

(specifying the required contents for the record).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has

not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 9th day of August, 2024.