in Re Loyd Landon Sorrow

Court of Appeals of Texas

in Re Loyd Landon Sorrow

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 25, 2015·No. 01-15-00536-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued June 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Health and Safety Code § 611.005, and to compel it to transfer venue to Travis or Harris County.1 We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

This Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Texas Government Code Section 22.221, which expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals; and (2) writs against specified district or county court judges in the court of appeals district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2014). We lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ against the respondent, listed as the 419th District Court of Travis County, because this Court neither has jurisdiction over the district courts of Travis County nor is such a writ necessary to enforce this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See id.; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §22.201(b) (West Supp. 2014); cf. In re McGee, 213 S.W.3d 405, 405–06 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus petition, seeking relief against Walker County officials, for want of jurisdiction). The Third Court of Appeals in Austin has jurisdiction over Travis County district courts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.201(d), 22.204(a) (West Supp. 2014).

Accordingly, relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss relator’s motion for leave to file a petition as moot.

1 The underlying original case, as listed by relator, is Loyd Landon Sorrow v. Harris County Sheriffs Department, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-11-003739, in the 419th District Court of Travis County, Texas, which is listed as the respondent.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

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

Opinion issued June 25, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Health and Safety Code § 611.005, and to compel it to transfer venue to Travis or Harris County.1 We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

This Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Texas Government Code Section 22.221, which expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals; and (2) writs against specified district or county court judges in the court of appeals district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.221(a), (b) (West Supp. 2014). We lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ against the respondent, listed as the 419th District Court of Travis County, because this Court neither has jurisdiction over the district courts of Travis County nor is such a writ necessary to enforce this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. See id.; see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §22.201(b) (West Supp. 2014); cf. In re McGee, 213 S.W.3d 405, 405–06 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus petition, seeking relief against Walker County officials, for want of jurisdiction). The Third Court of Appeals in Austin has jurisdiction over Travis County district courts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.201(d), 22.204(a) (West Supp. 2014).

Accordingly, relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss relator’s motion for leave to file a petition as moot.

1 The underlying original case, as listed by relator, is Loyd Landon Sorrow v. Harris County Sheriffs Department, et al., Cause No. D-1-GN-11-003739, in the 419th District Court of Travis County, Texas, which is listed as the respondent.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.

in Re Loyd Landon Sorrow, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

in Re Loyd Landon Sorrow (in Re Loyd Landon Sorrow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related