In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00265-CV
IN RE KRISS CAMP, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
June 25, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Relator, Kriss Camp, appearing pro se, has filed a motion for leave to file a
petition for writ of mandamus and a petition for writ of mandamus. In the petition he
seeks an order compelling respondent, the Honorable Don R. Emerson, judge of the
320th District Court of Potter County, to vacate a judgment in an underlying divorce
proceeding and grant relator a new trial. Chief among relator’s complaints seems to be
that Judge Emerson rendered a judgment declaring relator’s marriage void in
contradiction of this court’s mandate in Camp v. Camp.1 We will deny relator’s petition.
1
Camp v. Camp, No. 07-11-00282-CV, 2012 Tex. App. Lexis 6473 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Aug. 3, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing and remanding case for new trial).
The writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the
violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy available by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator must generally bring forward all that is necessary to establish
a claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7; Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of
Appeals, 842 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). This includes providing
an adequate record to substantiate the allegations contained in the petition for writ of
mandamus. Dallas Morning News, 842 S.W.2d at 658; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d
833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Absent a sufficient record, mandamus will not
issue. Id.
None of relator’s factual allegations are supported by citation to evidence
included in the appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g); 52.3(j) (required
certification). Indeed, the petition is not accompanied by anything even approximating a
proper appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k) (appendix); 52.7 (record). Further
we are not shown why the complaints relator raises were incapable of resolution by
appeal. In this way, nothing shows how any action by Judge Emerson threatens
interference with our judgment in Camp v. Camp. Upjohn Co. v. Marshall, 843 S.W.2d
203, 204 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding).
We therefore must, and do, deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. His
request for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 52, Notes and Comments (“The requirement of a motion for leave in original
proceedings is repealed”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; In re Bryant, No. 07-11-0052-CV, 2011
2
Tex. App. Lexis 1421, at *5 n.4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 25, 2011, orig. proceeding)
(per curiam, mem. op.).
James T. Campbell
Justice
3