in Re Edward Roy Newsome

Opinion issued May 23, 2006




 





In The

Court of Appeals

For the

First District of Texas

____________


NO. 01–05–01168–CV

____________


IN RE EDWARD ROY NEWSOME, Relator





Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus





MEMORANDUM OPINIONOn December 8, 2005, relator Edward Roy Newsome filed a document in this Court that among other things purports to be a petition for a writ of mandamus. On January 26, 2006 and March 23, 2006, relator filed motions in this original–proceeding case number that among other things request an out–of–time appeal and a bench warrant. The underlying lawsuit is Newsome v. St. Luke Hospital, No. 2005–06163 (234th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex., Sept. 14, 2005).

          Relator’s petition and motions do not identify the identity of the respondent or real party in interest. In addition, relator has neither paid the required filing fees, nor filed an affidavit of indigence that complies with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a), (c)(2) (establishing indigence); see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 (Vernon 2005) (listing fees in court of appeals); Fees Civ. Cases B(1), (3) (listing fees in court of appeals).

          A court of appeals has no general writ power over a person—other than a judge of a district or county court—unless issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court in a case properly before it. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); Silva v. Klevenhagen, 833 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). Because the petition does not identify the respondent, we have no jurisdiction over relator’s petition.

          Accordingly, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction (1) the petition for a writ of mandamus and all requests for relief in the December 8, 2005 document and (2) the January 26, 2006 and March 23, 2006 motions filed in this case number.

 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Taft and Nuchia.