in Re: Jerome Leonard Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 25, 2006
• Docket: 12-06-00018-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                     NO. 12-06-00018-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: JEROME LEONARD JOHNSON,      §     ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR

---

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            In this original proceeding, Jerome Leonard Johnson seeks a writ of mandamus requiring Carolyn Rains, District Clerk of Houston County, Texas, to “file and process all of the mail that was mailed to the newly elected District Clerk of Houston County, Texas, despite of the fact that it was addressed to the Former District Clerk.” In particular, Johnson avers that, based upon erroneous information, he mailed his “Texas Tort Lawsuit” to Pam Pugh, Respondent’s predecessor in office. Upon discovering his error, he sent a letter to Respondent, informing her of the error, but received no reply. He assumes from Respondent’s silence that she has received his petition and ensuing correspondence, but has not filed his petition.

            A court of appeals has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county in the court of appeals district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004). In order for a district clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See id.; In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Johnson has not demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against Respondent is appropriate to enforce our jurisdiction. Consequently, we have no authority

to issue a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

                                                                                                     DIANE DEVASTO

                                                                                                               Justice

Opinion delivered January 25, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and De Vasto, J.

(PUBLISH)