TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-15-00021-CV
In re Steven Paul Wilson
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM LEE COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Steven Paul Wilson, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition
for writ of mandamus relating to a lawsuit that he had earlier filed in the 335th District Court of
Lee County.1 In his petition, Wilson asks this Court to: (1) compel the district court to vacate its
order granting court reporter Wendy L. Kirby’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum filed by
Wilson against Kirby in the underlying suit; (2) compel Kirby to comply with the discovery request;
(3) compel Lee County Attorney Martin Placke to comply with a similar discovery request; and
(4) compel Lee County Sheriff Rodney Meyers to accept service of a discovery request.
As an initial matter, this Court’s mandamus jurisdiction is expressly limited to:
(1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in this Court’s district, and (2) all writs
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.2 Wilson has failed to show that the issuance of a writ against
Kirby, Placke, or Meyers is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, we do not
have mandamus jurisdiction over those individuals.
1
In the underlying suit, the district court entered a no-evidence summary judgment against
Wilson, which he has appealed. That appeal, which has been separately docketed under appellate
cause number 03-14-00553-CV, remains pending at this time.
2
See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221.
We have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district court.3
However, such a writ will issue only to correct a trial court’s “clear abuse of discretion” or violation
of duty imposed by law where no “adequate” remedy by appeal exists.4 A clear abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court’s decision is so arbitrary and capricious that it amounts to clear error.5
Here, the discovery that Wilson sought in his subpoena was an audio recording of an evidentiary
hearing held in an earlier habeas-corpus proceeding related to Wilson’s underlying convictions. At
the hearing on Kirby’s motion to quash, Kirby informed the district court that she had already
produced and filed a written transcript of that hearing, and the district court found that transcript to
be “sufficient” for purposes of the lawsuit that Wilson had filed. On this record, we cannot conclude
that the district court clearly abused its discretion in granting Kirby’s motion to quash Wilson’s
discovery request.6
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
Filed: August 26, 2015
3
See id.
4
See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).
5
See id.
6
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b); see also In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181
(Tex. 1999) (explaining that trial court has “broad discretion” to “define the scope of discovery”).
2