in Re Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-16-00405-CV Style: In re Maxine Adams and Cecil Adams, Relators Date motion filed*: February 6, 2017 Type of motion: Amended Request for Adams Enbanc Motion for Reconsideration and Emergency Notice of Intent to File Writ of Mandamus to the Supreme Court of Texas

Party filing motion: Pro Se Relators Cecil and Maxine Adams Document to be filed: Amended En Banc Motion for Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ Because relators’ amended request was filed beyond the 15-day period allowed for such motions to amend to be filed as a matter of right, but before the original motion was decided, this motion is construed as a motion seeking leave of court to amend the original en banc motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.6, 49.7. However, because relators raise mainly new issues in their motion and do not identify either of the two en banc reconsideration criteria, their motion seeking leave to amend is DENIED. See id. 41.2(c), 49.6; cf. Wentworth v. Meyer, 839 S.W.2d 766, 778 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (Cornyn, J., concurring) (“A motion for rehearing does not afford a litigant an opportunity to raise new issues, especially after the case has been briefed, argued, and decided on other grounds.”) (emphasis in original).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_  Acting individually

Date: February 23, 2017

November 7, 2008 Revision