in Re Phillip Jackson
Opinion
Opinion issued January 21, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
503.1(a)(2).1 However, this Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is limited to (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge within this Court’s district, and (2) writs necessary to enforce the Court’s jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004). We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a justice of the peace unless the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See In re Smith, 355 S.W.3d 901, 901–02 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Elliott, No. 01-09-00714-CV, 2009 WL 2526402, at *1, (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 20, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)); Easton v. Franks, 842 S.W.2d 772, 772–73 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Relator’s petition does not demonstrate that the relief he requests is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.
1 The petition identifies the underlying case as Phillip Jackson v. Frankie Reescano and Kenneth Jolley, Cause No. GSC-14-015, in the Justice Court, Precinct 4, Place 1 of Brazoria County, the Honorable Sharon Fox presiding.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re Phillip Jackson (in Re Phillip Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.