TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00798-CV
In re Ray Hill
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Ray Hill, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a pro
se motion in this Court entitled Motion to Compel Performance of Process for Mandamus. Looking
to the substance of Hill’s motion, rather than its title or form, we construe his motion as a petition
for writ of mandamus. See Surgitek, Bristol–Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex.1999)
(courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine its nature); see also
Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, Hills appears to ask us to compel
certain prison officials to take, or refrain from taking, particular actions.
This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice or personnel thereof. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of
mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other
writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. The named
employees of TDCJ are not parties against whom we have the power to issue a writ of mandamus.
Nor has Hill demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.
We have no jurisdiction to grant Hill the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: January 6, 2015
2