in Re: Patricia Ann Potts

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 22, 2007
• Docket: 14-07-00065-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 22, 2007

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 22, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00065-CV

IN RE PATRICIA POTTS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND A/N/F OF

ALLY WILLIAM, A MINOR,

 Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

On February 2, 2007, relator Patricia A. Potts, individually and as next friend of Ally William, her minor daughter, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, an affidavit of indigence, and six motions/notices in this court.^[1]  In her motions, notices, and petition for mandamus, relator seeks numerous writs against various parties and state agencies; primarily however, relator=s requests can be grouped into two forms, discussed below. 

Relator filed a motion for temporary orders, seeking an order compelling the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to conduct a neuro-psychological examination of relator=s daughter, a psychological examination of relator, and appointing an attorney to represent her.  Relator argued in her petition that these services were being denied to her as retaliation for filing a whistleblower suit.  Relator also seeks orders compelling individual doctors and other state agencies to provide services to her.  Our authority to issue writs of mandamus does not extend to the relief requested by relator.  See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004).  Nor has relator established that we have the authority to issue an order appointing an attorney to represent her.  Therefore, because we do not have the writ power to provide the relief requested, we deny relator=s petition as to those requests.  We also deny the motions corresponding to that requested relief.^[2] 

Relator also seeks relief from the trial court=s order sustaining the contest to her affidavit of indigence.  She previously sought relief from the trial court=s order through an appeal, which was dismissed because a final order has not been issued.  The clerk=s record in the appeal was subsequently transferred to this mandamus proceeding.  Nevertheless, relator fails to establish that the trial court=s order is an abuse of discretion for which she does not have an adequate appellate remedy.  Accordingly, we deny relator=s request for that relief and corresponding motions.^[3]  

In sum, relator fails to establish that she is entitled to the requested mandamus relief, and we deny

relator=s petition for writ of mandamus.                                                    

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed March 22, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, and Justices Fowler and Edelman. 

---

^[1]Relator filed motions or notices that did not request specific relief from this court:  (1) ANotice of Tampering/Continuing Retaliation@; and (2) AObjection to Appeal Court Failure/Refusal to Recognize Disability and Notice of Child Abuse.@  She also filed a motion to consolidate appeals, which this court denied by order dated February 22, 2007.  As we discuss, we deny all of relator=s motions pending in this original proceeding.  

^[2]On February 26, relator filed two more motions: (1) Request for Ruling on Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders; and (2) Request for Extension of Time to File and Serve Record and Notice of Financial Tampering.  These motions are denied.

^[3]The Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (ATDARS@) recently filed a motion to dismiss relators= petition as to her claims against that agency.  Having found that relator is not entitled to the relief requested, we deny TDARS=s motion as moot.