in Re John Mark Quaak

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re John Mark Quaak

DecidedMay 3, 2012

Docket03-12-00197-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in Re John Mark Quaak (in Re John Mark Quaak) 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 John Mark Quaak, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00197-CV

In re John Mark Quaak

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, John Mark Quaak, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a pro se petition seeking a "restraining order with preliminary preventive injunction" in this Court. Looking to the substance of Quaak's petition, rather than its title or form, we construe his petition as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine its nature); see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2010); Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, Quaak asks us to compel certain named individuals of the law library staff and administrative staff of the Neal Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to take, or refrain from taking, particular actions in connection with providing him with legal writing supplies.

This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or personnel thereof. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against "a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district" and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221. Staff members of the Neal Unit are not parties against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor has Quaak demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction to grant Quaak any relief.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed For Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 3, 2012

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

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00197-CV

In re John Mark Quaak

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, John Mark Quaak, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a pro se petition seeking a "restraining order with preliminary preventive injunction" in this Court. Looking to the substance of Quaak's petition, rather than its title or form, we construe his petition as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine its nature); see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2010); Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, Quaak asks us to compel certain named individuals of the law library staff and administrative staff of the Neal Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to take, or refrain from taking, particular actions in connection with providing him with legal writing supplies.

This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or personnel thereof. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against "a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district" and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221. Staff members of the Neal Unit are not parties against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor has Quaak demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction to grant Quaak any relief.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed For Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: May 3, 2012

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in Re John Mark Quaak, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-mark-quaak-texapp-2012.

Opinion

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack