In Re: Kelly O. Brooks v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 1, 2024
• Docket: 05-24-01262-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DISMISSED and Opinion Filed November 1, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-24-01262-CV

IN RE KELLY O. BROOKS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-18780

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Miskel Before the Court are relator’s October 28, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

and October 29, 2024 request for expedited processing and motion to stay pending

resolution of petition for writ of mandamus, the latter of which we construe as an

emergency motion for temporary relief. In the petition, relator challenges various

actions by a civil associate judge related to a hearing on an application for temporary

restraining order. In the emergency motion, relator seeks a stay of the temporary

restraining order and the order granting plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery

that the civil associate judge issued on October 25, 2024. Initially, we note that relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure in numerous respects. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1, 52.3(g),

52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a).

Notwithstanding these defects, we lack jurisdiction to entertain this

mandamus petition. This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a writ of

mandamus against a civil associate judge unless the civil associate judge is

interfering with our appellate jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a),

(b); In re Homesite Ins. Co., No. 05-24-00973-CV, 2024 WL 3880620, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Aug. 20, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Davis, No. 05-14-

00841-CV, 2014 WL 3052478, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 3, 2014, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator does not explain how the civil associate judge’s

actions interfere with our jurisdiction, and we ascertain no reason.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of

jurisdiction. We also deny as moot relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief.

241262f.p05 /Emily Miskel/ EMILY MISKEL JUSTICE

–2–