in Re: Robert C. Morris

NO. 12-15-00089-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS § IN RE: ROBERT C. MORRIS, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING RELATOR § MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator, Robert C. Morris, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus alleging that he has been denied certain legal supplies, which violates federal and state law. The respondents are Albert Jimenez, Smith Unit Access to Courts Supervisor; Vicky Barrows, TDCJ Access To Courts Program Manager; and Cindi Sigsbee, Regional Access to Courts Supervisor. Morris requests an order directing the respondents to furnish the legal supplies necessary to provide him “meaningful and adequate access to the courts.” This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is expressly limited to (1) writs against a district court judge or county court judge in the court of appeals district, and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (West 2004). The respondents named in Morris’s mandamus petition are not district judges or county court judges. Therefore, this court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the respondents unless mandamus is necessary to enforce the court’s jurisdiction. Morris has not shown that mandamus against any of the named respondents is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See id. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. Opinion delivered April 15, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT APRIL 15, 2015 NO. 12-15-00089-CV IN RE: ROBERT C. MORRIS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 349th District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 349-6270) THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Relator herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the petition for writ of mandamus be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.