NUMBER 13-08-00507-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________
IN RE CLYDE NUBINE
____________________________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Clyde Nubine, pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above
causes on August 12, 2008. Relator requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus
ordering Anna Marie Silvas, the District Clerk of Bee County, to file and process his
pleadings.
We conclude this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This
court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that
1
See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX . GOV'T CODE ANN . §
22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig.
proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.
proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig.
proceeding); see also In re Hayes, NO. 13-05-454-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5706, *2
(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, orig. proceeding).
When a district clerk refuses to accept a pleading presented for filing, the party
presenting the document can seek relief by filing an application for writ of mandamus in the
district court, or attempting to file the pleading directly with a district judge, explaining in a
verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. See In re Bernard,
993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)
(O’Connor, J., concurring).
Relator has neither alleged nor shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to
enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby
DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Pending motions, if any,
are likewise DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this 27th day of August, 2008.
2