NO. 12-07-00449-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
§
IN RE: JIMMY MARK APPLEMAN,
RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jimmy Mark Appleman has filed a petition for writ of mandamus naming as respondents the Angelina County District Clerk, the Angelina County Clerk, and the Judges of the 159th and 217th Judicial District Courts of Angelina County. In his petition, he alleges “the Respondents” have (1) refused to inform him of the cause number assigned to his recently filed lawsuit and of the court that will hear the case and (2) failed to issue citation. He alleges further that the respondents’ failure to act has denied him access to the courts in violation of the United States and Texas constitutions. We dismiss Appleman’s petition for lack of jurisdiction in part and deny it in part.
The Texas Legislature has not conferred authority on the courts of appeals to issue writs of mandamus generally. Each court of appeals or justice of a court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus to enforce the jurisdiction of the court. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (Vernon 2004). Also, each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district or the judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the court of appeals district. Id. § 22.221(b). Because of these limitations, we do not have authority under the facts alleged to issue a writ of mandamus against a county or district clerk.
Generally, a party seeking mandamus relief against a trial court cannot prevail absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion and appeal is an inadequate remedy. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). We have been unable to locate any authority for Appleman’s contention that the respondent trial courts have a duty to notify him of the cause number and court assignment and to issue citation or cause it to be issued. Therefore, the respondent courts’ failure to do so cannot constitute an abuse of discretion. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-40. Because Appleman has not shown an abuse of discretion by the named trial courts, he has not established that he is entitled to the requested relief. See id. at 839.
The portion of Appleman’s petition seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the county and district clerks is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The portion seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the trial courts is denied.
SAM GRIFFITH
Justice
Opinion delivered December 21, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)