NO. 07-03-0317-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
JULY 18, 2003
______________________________
IN RE BENJAMIN V. WRIGHT, RELATOR
_________________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Benjamin V. Wright seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the County of
Lubbock to respond to a nunc pro tunc order. We deny the petition.
On July 16, 2003, Relator filed with the clerk of this court a pleading entitled
Application for Writ of Mandamus. The pleading alleges that the County of Lubbock has
failed to “act as requested by the Relator. . . because the Relator [sic] failed to respond to
a Nunc Pro Tunc order asking to correct a time credit dispute.” We are requested to issue
a writ of mandamus directing Lubbock County to reply to the Nunc Pro Tunc order.
In support of the petition for writ of mandamus, relator did not attach any document
or record of proceedings.
When petition for writ of mandamus is made, it is the relator’s burden to show
entitlement to the relief being requested. See generally Johnson v. Fourth Court of
Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). Relator must file with the
petition a certified sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief
and that was filed in any underlying proceeding, and a properly authenticated transcript
of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding including any exhibits offered
in evidence or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter
complained of. TEX . R. APP . P. 52.7(a).
Relator’s petition contains only allegations. Certified, sworn copies of the order and
correspondence referenced in the petition are not attached or furnished, nor is any other
document or transcript. Relator has not presented a record which shows entitlement to the
relief sought, or upon which we are authorized to act.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Phil Johnson
Chief Justice
2