in Re: Thomas Florence

Opinion

                                           NUMBER 13-05-754-CV

                                  COURT OF APPEALS

                      THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

                                       IN RE THOMAS FLORENCE

____________________________________________________________

                                    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

____________________________________________________________

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

                          Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo

                                   Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion^[1]

Relator, Thomas Florence, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on December 13, 2005.  Relator requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the DeWitt County District Clerk to assign his civil complaint a cause number and notify relator of the same.

We conclude this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.  This court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.  See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. ' 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.BWaco 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); see also In re Hayes, NO. 13-05-454-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5706, *2 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2005, orig. proceeding). 

The writ of mandamus may not be utilized to protect or enforce the potential jurisdiction of a court of appeals.  Bush v. Vela, 535 S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 1976, orig. proceeding).  Generally, an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus only after appellate jurisdiction has been invoked.  Winfrey v. Chandler, 31 S.W.2d 59, 61-62 (Tex. 1968).   While an exception to this rule exists, relator has neither alleged nor shown that the exception is applicable here.  See, e.g., In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454-55 (Tex.  App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (if relator had first filed the writ with the district judge, explaining in a verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing, and if the judge refused to accept the pleading for filing, then the court of appeals would have jurisdiction). 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 14th day of December, 2005.

---

^[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.@); Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).