in Re: Frank S. Rodriguez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 16, 2006
• Docket: 13-05-00414-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-05-414-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

IN RE: FRANK S. RODRIGUEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Motion for Emergency Temporary Relief

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION                                   

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

                                 Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On June 30, 2005, relator, Frank S. Rodriguez, filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court in which he alleges that on June 2, 2005, the respondent, the Honorable Thomas F. Greenwell, Presiding Judge of the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, denied his motion to modify protective order and entered an Order of Income Withholding for Spousal Support.  Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus asks this Court to order the respondent to vacate the June 2, 2005 orders.  In addition, relator filed a motion for emergency relief, asking this Court to order a stay of the Order of Income Withholding for Spousal Support.  This Court stayed all proceedings in  cause number 04-386-G and requested a response from the real party in interest.  On July 12, 2005, counsel for the real party in interest filed a motion for extension of time to file response.  On July 28, 2005, this Court granted the motion and extended the time to respond to August 12, 2005.  On August 28, 2005, counsel for the real party in interest filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.  On September 15, 2005, real party in interest filed a pro se motion for extension of time to file response.  On September 21, 2005, this Court granted the motion and extended the time to respond to October 24, 2005.  To date, no response has been filed by the real party in interest.            

Having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, this Court is of the opinion that the relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought.  This Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus and lifts the stay granted on relator=s emergency motion.  In addition, the motion to withdraw as counsel is granted.  The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 16th day of February, 2006.