Deny and Opinion Filed October 17, 2014
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01284-CV
IN RE SANDRA CRENSHAW, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-02008
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Francis, and Evans
Opinion by Justice FitzGerald
Relator filed this five sentence petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, and injunction
and motion for emergency stay characterizing the underlying case as an election contest and
complaining of the failure of the trial court to transfer the case to a visiting judge. The virtually
complete absence of a statement of facts and the complete absence of a mandamus record of any
kind prevent the Court from discussing the facts and issues in the case. Relator prays that the
Court grant an emergency stay of the proceedings in the trial court and prohibit any motions to
be filed or hearings set to preserve evidence while this Court considers the merits of the original
proceeding. The relator further prays that the presiding judge be compelled to transfer the case
to a visiting judge.
The petition for writ of mandamus does not provide any basis for granting the relief the
relator requests. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure have specific requirements for the
form and contents of a petition for writ of mandamus.1 Relator’s petition does not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in virtually any respect.2 On appeal, as at trial, the pro se litigant
must properly present his or her case.3 If a pro se litigant is not required to comply with the
applicable rules of procedure, he or she would be given an unfair advantage over a litigant who is
represented by counsel.4 There cannot be two sets of procedural rules, one for litigants with
counsel and the other for litigants representing themselves.5
Relator’s petition does not set forth issues or points presented for relief.6 The petition
includes no appendix or record,7 so the few facts presented are not cited to competent evidence
included in the appendix or record.8 The petition includes virtually no argument9 and cites only
this Court’s mandamus jurisdictional statute and the Texas Constitution as authority for the relief
the relator seeks.10 Finally, relator cannot meet the certification requirements because, absent an
appendix or record, relator cannot certify “that every factual statement in the petition is
supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” 11
1
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.
2
See infra notes 6–11.
3
Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied).
4
Holt v. F.F. Enters., 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied).
5
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).
6
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(f) (“The petition must state concisely all issues or points presented for relief.”).
7
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (setting forth necessary and optional contents of appendix), 52.7(a) (setting forth required contents of record).
8
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g) (“The petition must state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented.
Every statement of fact in the petition must be supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”).
9
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h) (“The petition must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made. . . .”).
10
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h) (“The petition must contain . . . appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”).
11
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j) (“The person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every
factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”). Relator’s certification does not
completely track this language. She states, “I certify that I have reviewed the petition and have concluded that every factual statement made in
the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the records.” In light of the complete absence of an appendix or mandamus record in
this case, we need not further expound on the sufficiency of the certification other than to alert relator the requirements should be strictly
followed.
–2–
For all of these reasons, relator has failed to establish she is entitled to relief. We DENY
the petition and DENY the motion for stay.12
141284F.P05
/Kerry P. FitzGerald/
KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE
12
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.
–3–