In Re Gavin Wilbur West v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 27, 2025
Docket01-25-00117-CV
StatusPublished

This text of In Re Gavin Wilbur West v. the State of Texas (In Re Gavin Wilbur West v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Gavin Wilbur West v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Opinion issued February 27, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00117-CV ——————————— IN RE GAVIN WILBUR WEST, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Gavin Wilbur West, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of

mandamus, complaining that the trial court has abused its discretion in refusing to

rule on his motion to dismiss real party in interest’s application for a family-violence

protective order.1 Relator also seeks sanctions.

1 The underlying case is Amy Michelle Paul v. Gavin Wilbur West, cause number 25- DCV-324874, pending in the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Monica Rawlins presiding. Although relator has not included the required identity of parties, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(a), his petition indicates that his complaints concern the lack of action

by the Honorable Felishia Young, Associate Judge of the 328th District Court.

Although relator mentions the Honorable Monica Rawlins, the Presiding Judge of

the 328th District Court,2 he presents no argument seeking relief concerning any

actions by Judge Rawlins. The appellate court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over an

associate judge. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, we need not reach any other issues

raised in the petition. Any pending motions are likewise dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.

2 Relator states: “Judge Rowlings [sic] handling of the De Novo, has been equally inappropriate, but was likely caused by Judge Young’s failure to record her rulings/decisions, refusal to hear Motions, and refusal to set Hearings, thus creating of a “legal limbo” designed to punish the Respondent.” 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re Gavin Wilbur West v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gavin-wilbur-west-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2025.