in Re William Birchett

Opinion

DENY; and Opinion Filed June 4, 2019.

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00600-CV

IN RE WILLIAM BIRCHETT, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC19-06941

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Schenck In this original proceeding, relator “seeks mandamus relief and an emergency hearing of

the lower court’s denial of a TRO and injunction sought to prevent the destruction of evidence and

a request for injunctive relief to prevent the City from destroying evidence.” Relator states that

the trial court ruled below that “it did not have the authority to issue an injunction preventing

spoliation of evidence.” Relator has not, however, provided this Court with certified or sworn

copies of any pleadings or motions filed in the trial court or of the trial court’s order from which

he seeks relief. Relator asks this Court to “find that a Court has authority to enjoin spoliation of

evidence, find that Plaintiff has demonstrated the required basis for injunctive relief, and issue an

injunction.” We construe this as a request for a writ of mandamus and a writ of injunction.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co.,

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not established his right to mandamus relief. We, therefore, deny relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator also seeks a writ of injunction to enjoin the real party in interest from destroying

evidence. “Each court of appeals ... may issue ... all ... writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction

of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). A court of appeals does not have “original

jurisdiction to grant writs of injunction, except to protect its jurisdiction over the subject matter of

a pending appeal, or to prevent an unlawful interference with the enforcement of its judgments and

decrees.” In re Torres, No. 05-18-00774-CV, 2018 WL 4784580, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct.

4, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (quoting Ott v. Bell, 606 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Tex. App.—

Waco 1980, no writ)). Here, relator has not shown that a writ of injunction is necessary to protect

our jurisdiction over a pending appeal in this Court or to prevent the interference with the

enforcement of one of this Court’s judgments. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of

injunction.

Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief

requested. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and petition for writ of

injunction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines

relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

/David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE

190600F.P05

–2–