Petitions for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction, and Memorandum Opinion filed September 11, 2008.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-08-00342 -CV
NO. 14-08-00343 -CV
____________
IN RE EDWARD R. NEWSOME, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Edward R. Newsome has asserted two separate petitions for writ of mandamus (case numbers 14-08-00342-CV and 14-08-00343-CV) in the papers he filed on April 24, 2008. See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221(b)(Vernon 1988); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. The respondents are listed as AMs. Tucker et. al@ (case number 14-08-00342-CV) and ATrial Counsel Paul Mewis et. al@ (case number 14-08-00343-CV). We cannot determine the underlying lawsuit or the identity of the real party in interest, and relator has not specified from what order(s) he seeks relief.
A court of appeals has no general writ power over a personBother than a judge of a district or county courtBunless issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce the court=s jurisdiction in a case already properly before it. See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221 (Vernon 1988). The petitions do not identify respondents over whom the court has jurisdiction. See id.
Accordingly, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction the petitions in case numbers 14-08-00342-CV and 14-08-00343-CV, and all other requests for relief contained in those petitions.
PER CURIAM
Petitions Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction and Memorandum Opinion filed, September 11, 2008.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justice Boyce, and Senior Justice Hudson.*
* Senior Justice Hudson sitting by assignment.