in Re Matthew C. Lyle

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 21, 2018
Docket11-18-00341-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Matthew C. Lyle (in Re Matthew C. Lyle) 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 Matthew C. Lyle, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-18-00341-CV __________

IN RE MATTHEW C. LYLE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION Matthew C. Lyle, Relator, has filed an original mandamus proceeding in this court. Relator asserts that the Honorable Ernie Armstrong, the judge of the 132nd Judicial District Court of Scurry County, wrongfully issued an order to withdraw $1,184 from Relator’s inmate trust fund. Relator asks this court to ascertain the amount of money that has been removed from his account and to “void, correct, or dismiss” the trial court’s order. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator here has not shown that he has no adequate remedy by appeal. Although a notice or order to withdraw funds is not an appealable order, an order ruling on a motion to strike or rescind an order to withdraw inmate funds would be appealable. Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) (“withdrawal order” is actually a notification from the court, not an order). Relator’s relief with respect to his inmate trust fund lies in the filing of a motion to strike or a motion to rescind in the trial court and, if necessary, an appeal from a denial of such a motion. See id. Because Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842; In re Mendoza, No. 05-16-00383-CV, 2016 WL 1469593, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 14, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM December 21, 2018 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.

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

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Harrell v. State
286 S.W.3d 315 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Matthew C. Lyle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-matthew-c-lyle-texapp-2018.