in Re Ja'Coy O'Brien O'Hara

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, In Part, and Denied, In Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed May 7, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00379-CR

IN RE JA'COY O'BRIEN O'HARA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1418602

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 28, 2015, relator Ja’Coy O’Brien O’Hara filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel Chris Daniel, Harris County District Clerk, to file relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus with the trial court. Relator also asks this court to compel the Honorable Michael McSpadden, presiding judge of the 209th District Court of Harris County, to address a petition for writ of mandamus relator allegedly filed in that court, in which relator purportedly requested the trial court to compel the district clerk to file relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

No Jurisdiction to Issue Mandamus Petition Against District Clerk

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

No Entitlement to Mandamus Relief Against District Judge

As relator’s petition concerns the presiding judge of the 209th District Court, relator contends that he filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the trial court, and implies that the trial court has not ruled on relator’s petition. Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable procedural rules. In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Among these rules is the obligation to provide the reviewing court with a complete and adequate record sufficient to establish the relator’s entitlement to relief. Id. (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992)). Specifically, relator is obligated to furnish a record containing a certified or sworn

2 Conclusion

To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against the district clerk, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the remainder of the petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

4 Conclusion

To the extent relator seeks mandamus relief against the district clerk, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the remainder of the petition for writ of mandamus.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).