In Re Theodore Khnanisho v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 19, 2024
• Docket: 13-23-00598-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-23-00598-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE THEODORE KHNANISHO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Silva, and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

On December 27, 2023, Theodore Khnanisho filed a pro se pleading in this Court

“requesting to reopen” trial court cause number 2022-DCV-2251-C and to dismiss trial

court cause number 2023-DCV-4380-C, both causes arising from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas. We liberally construe this pleading as a petition for writ of

mandamus in this appellate cause number and as a notice of appeal in our appellate

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). cause number 13-23-00597-CV. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1 (delineating the

plenary power of the appellate courts), 25.1 (governing the perfection of appeal in civil

cases), 52 (describing the requirements for original proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod.

Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding [mand.

denied]) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue

of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”); see also

Tex. Med. Res., LLP v. Molina Healthcare of Tex., Inc., 659 S.W.3d 424, 441 (Tex. 2023)

(directing courts to examine the substance of pleadings). In this petition for writ of

mandamus, Khnanisho raises complaints regarding the trial court judge, court staff,

service of process, and debt collectors.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial

court issues an order “beyond its jurisdiction” because the order is void ab initio. In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).

2 The relator bears the burden to show that it is entitled to mandamus relief. In re

H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In

re Vara, 668 S.W.3d 827, 828 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2023, orig. proceeding); see also

Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show

himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements,

the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent

evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise

argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the

appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that the

relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus

relief. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Ramos, 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (specifying the

required contents for the appendix), R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the

record).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Khnanisho has not met his burden to obtain

relief. See In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Khnanisho’s appeal will remain

pending in our appellate cause number 13-23-00597-CV.

3 CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 19th day of January, 2024.