In Re: Ricardo Flores v. the State of Texas

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: § No. 08-23-00080-CR RICARDO FLORES, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Relator. § IN MANDAMUS §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Ricardo Flores, pro se, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, with no accompanying records, complaining that the district clerk in trial cause number 20180D00940 twice refused to file his motion for nunc pro tunc—once for lack of a correct cause number and another time to ask for clarification as to whether Relator “intend[ed] to file an 11.07.” Relator argues that the clerk must accept his filing and “any ruling must be made by the district judge not by the clerk. Only the district judge can decide that the pleading is not in its correct form.”

We must dismiss the writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. “A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.” In re Curry, No. 11-22-00084-CR, 2022 WL 1040914, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland April 7, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(per curiam) (citing In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221. Relator has not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the clerk is necessary to enforce the Court’s jurisdiction in this case.

Accordingly, we dismiss Flores’s petition for a writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

March 30, 2023 Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ. (Do Not Publish)