NO. 07-12-0489-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 29, 2012
______________________________
In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,
Relator
______________________________
Original Proceeding
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before the court is Barry Dwayne Minnfee’s application for a writ of mandamus. He
requests that the “Seventh Court of Appeals grant [a] writ of mandamus [for] service to be made on
the FBI [agent] Gonzales.” We interpret relator’s petition as a request for us to mandamus a court
clerk to issue a citation of service on an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This is so
because trial court clerks issue citation of service upon request. Tex. R. Civ. P. 99. We dismiss
the petition.
Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances.
In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
Texas Government Code § 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals
to writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and writs against specified
district or county court judges in the court of appeals district. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a),
(b) (West 2004). Consequently, unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, we have no
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a trial court clerk. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d
691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (noting because a district
clerk is not a judge, a relator must show issuance of a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce the
jurisdiction of the court of appeals). Relator’s mandamus petition does not claim, nor does it
appear to seek relief designed to enforce this court’s jurisdiction. Nor does relator allege that
he has an appeal pending before this court.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Per Curiam