in Re: Ivo Nabelek

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 20, 2003
• Docket: 01-03-00197-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued March 20, 2003

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-03-00197-CV

IN RE IVO NABELEK, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Ivo Nabelek, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, a motion for leave to file pleadings, a motion to proceed as a pauper, and a motion to suspend the rule requiring that an original and three copies of all documents be filed in an original proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 9.3(a)(1)(A). We grant relator's motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, the motion to proceed as a pauper in this original proceeding, and the motion to suspend the requirements of Rule 9.3(a)(1)(A) regarding the filing of copies.

In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests that this Court compel respondent ⁽¹⁾ to rule on his pro se motions for "optografical testing" of evidence and for a "nunc pro tunc reformation of trial court's judgment." There are three prerequisites for the issuance of a writ of mandamus by an appellate court, namely: (1) the lower court must have a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act; (2) the relator must make a demand for performance; and (3) the subject court must refuse that request. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Relator has not provided us with a record that shows that he made any request of the respondent to perform a nondiscretionary act that respondent refused.

The petition for writ of mandamus is therefore denied.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack, and Justices Nuchia and Hanks.

1.

Respondent is the Honorable Deborah Mantooth Stricklin, Judge, 180th District Court, Harris County.