In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00431-CV
IN RE BRIAN DAMON WARD, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
January 20, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Relator, Brian Damon Ward, apparently attempting to proceed pro se and in
forma pauperis, seeks mandamus relief. It is unclear after reviewing Ward’s petition for
writ of mandamus exactly what relief he is seeking. It appears that Ward is seeking
reversal of a judgment dismissing his claims for want of prosecution in trial court cause
number V-100850-00-B. We will deny the petition.
After receiving Ward’s petition on December 12, 2014, this Court sent Ward
notice that a $145.00 filing fee applied to his petition. This notice informed Ward that he
must either pay the fee or file an affidavit of indigence with this Court by January 9,
2015. Further, this notice directed Ward to file an Affidavit Relating to Previous Filings
and a certified copy of his inmate trust account if he files an affidavit of indigence. See
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.004 (West Supp. 2014); Douglas v. Moffett, 418
S.W.3d 336, 339 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). The Court’s notice
informed Ward that failure to comply with the directives of the Court would subject his
original proceeding to dismissal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Ward filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and an affidavit of indigence on
January 16, 2015. While these filings included a certified copy of Ward’s inmate trust
account, it did not include an affidavit relating to previous filings. As such, Ward has
failed to meet with the legal requirements to proceed as an indigent and failed to comply
with the directives of this Court.
Much of the confusion relating to Ward’s petition for writ of mandamus arises
because the petition does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 52.3 of the
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 Relator’s pro se status does not exempt him
from complying with the rules of procedure. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573
S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).
We deny Ward’s petition for mandamus relief for failure to comply with a directive
of this Court and the applicable rules of procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
1
Specifically, the petition does not identify the parties and their counsel, include a table of
contents, include an index of authorities, include a statement of the case, include a statement of
jurisdiction, identify the issues presented, include a clear and concise argument, contain a short
conclusion that clearly states the nature of the relief sought, include a certification, and include an
appendix with necessary documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)-(f), (h)-(k).
2