In Re Edrick Dunn, Relator v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00161-CR

IN RE EDRICK DUNN, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

May 19, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Relator, Edrick Dunn, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, presents multiple

issues by which he seeks a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Les Hatch, Judge

of the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas, to compel him to order the Chief

Deputy Clerk of Lubbock County to issue citation and service of process to defendants in

his underlying civil suit. We deny the requested relief. 1

1 On May 9, 2025, Relator filed his petition. On May 14, 2025, he filed a second petition for writ of

mandamus adding another deputy clerk as a respondent and reurging the same arguments raised in the first petition. On May 19, 2025, Relator filed an Amended Petition in which he mistakenly asserts the Lubbock County District Clerk’s Office is somehow responsible for obtaining service of process on the defendants in his civil suit. This opinion addresses his concerns. BACKGROUND

According to Relator, on June 4, 2024, he filed an amended petition against the

Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, retired judge, Barbara Sucsy, retired Lubbock County District

Clerk, and Sara L. Smith, current Lubbock County District Clerk, alleging they violated his

due process rights while processing and adjudicating his applications for writs of habeas

corpus in 2017 and again in 2022. His suit alleges civil conspiracy, disobedience of writ

of habeas corpus, abuse of process, denial of due process, denial of equal protection,

denial of access to courts, illegal restraint, obstruction of justice, breach of fiduciary duty,

and breach of settlement agreement implied in law. He also seeks declaratory and

injunctive relief.

Relator relies on several exhibits submitted with his previous petition for writ of

mandamus in Cause Number 07-25-00105-CV and requests we take judicial notice of

those exhibits. TEX. R. EVID. 201. With the previous petition, he presented a copy of the

trial court’s “Civil Case Summary,” submitted as Exhibit H showing citation issued against

all three defendants on July 16, 2024. Relator then filed a “Motion for Service” on July

17, 2025, Exhibit F, requesting the trial court to issue an order “in assistance of issuing

citation and service of process . . . .” Exhibit I is a copy of an order signed by Judge Hatch

the following day on the “Motion for Service.” The portion of the order showing

“GRANTED or DENIED” is crossed out and Judge Hatch wrote “Moot. Citation has been

issued.”

2 In this proceeding, Relator has included Exhibit L, a copy of a “Notice of Intent to

Dismiss – No Service of Citation” unless one of the following actions is taken prior to May

29, 2025:

• service by citation is obtained before 5-29-2025;

• a waiver of citation is filed before 5-29-2025;

• a verified motion to retain is filed before 5-29-2025.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show (1)

the trial court abused its discretion and (2) no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re N.

Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding);

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

curiam). When seeking mandamus relief, a relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

To establish an abuse of discretion, a relator must demonstrate the trial court acted

unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See

Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). To

establish no adequate remedy by appeal, a relator must show there is no adequate

remedy at law to address the alleged harm and the act requested is a ministerial act, not

involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist.

Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

Furthermore, to establish a ministerial act, a relator must also show (1) a legal duty to

perform, (2) a demand for performance, and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586

S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979).

3 ANALYSIS

Relator asserts Judge Hatch has a ministerial duty to direct a deputy clerk to issue

service of process. We disagree.

A litigant requesting citation is responsible for obtaining service of the citation and

a copy of the original petition. TEX. R. CIV. P. 99.a.; Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884

S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex. 1994). A trial court bears no responsibility for assuring service of

process on a defendant. 2 In re Newby, No. 07-07-00228-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS

5705, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 19, 2007, orig. proceeding). In the absence of a

return of service showing process was served on the defendants, Judge Hatch did not

have a ministerial duty to consider and rule on Relator’s “Motion for Service.” See In re

Reger, No. 03-16-00120-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3423, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin April

5, 2019, orig. proceeding). Relator has not demonstrated entitlement to a writ of

mandamus.

CONCLUSION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Alex Yarbrough Justice

2 Rule 103, which provides who may serve process, does not include clerks or deputy clerks. TEX.

R. CIV. P. 103. 4