In Re: Peter Beasley v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 12, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00415-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 12, 2023

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00415-CV

IN RE PETER BEASLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-00573

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Nowell Before the Court is relator’s May 4, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus

wherein relator, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order, seeks to vacate a

local administrative judge’s order denying relator’s request for permission to

(1) prosecute, pro se, a bill of review that he originally filed through counsel and

(2) file, pro se, new appeals and original proceedings related to his bill of review.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show a clear abuse of

discretion and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of

Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show he is entitled to relief.

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his petition that

contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other

document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule

52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of

every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any

underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Rule 52.7(a)(2) requires the

relator to include with his petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any

relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered

in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the

matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2).

There is a question as to whether relator’s unsworn declaration satisfied his

required compliance with these rules. But we conclude that answering this question

is not necessary to our disposition of this case. Even if relator’s unsworn declaration

satisfied these requirements, a question on which we express no opinion, after

reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has

failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

–2– We also deny relator’s motion for temporary relief as moot.

/Erin A. Nowell// 230415f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE

–3–