In Re Jamin Stocker v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00242-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00242-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JAMIN STOCKER

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Jamin Stocker seeks to compel the

trial court to either file relator’s pleadings or instruct the district clerk of Bee County, Texas,

to accept and file his pleadings. Relator asserts that the district clerk has twice rejected

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). his attempt to file a civil lawsuit and the trial court has not responded to his request to file

his petition.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding). “The

relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.,

492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 827

S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d

424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a

pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary

relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must provide an appendix

and record sufficient to support the claim for relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3,

52.7(a).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

relator’s failure to provide an appendix or record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion

that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. We note that when the district clerk

refuses to accept and file a pleading, the aggrieved party may file an application for writ

of mandamus in the district court, see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.011, or may attempt to

file the pleading directly with the district judge, see TEX. R. CIV. P. 74, explaining in a

verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. See In re Simmonds,

271 S.W.3d 874, 879 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Bernard, 993

S.W.2d 453, 454–55 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

(O’Connor, J., concurring); see also In re Hicks, No. 01-21-00186-CV, 2021 WL 1618461,

2 at **1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 27, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per

curiam). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of May, 2025.