NO. 07-10-00059-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
MARCH 3, 2010
IN RE KENNETH HICKMAN-BEY, RELATOR
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
ORDER
Relator Kenneth Hickman-Bey has filed a petition for writ of mandamus
complaining that the respondent district judge, the Honorable Ron Enns, judge of the
69th District Court of Hartley County, has not ruled on several motions he filed.1
According to his petition, relator filed the motions in his pending civil case in that court,
Cause No. 4249H.2 In the petition, relator states he has “written numerous
communications to the court seeking to prosecute this case.” Relator attached two
documents to the petition. The first is a letter dated October 23, 2009, purportedly from
relator to respondent, requesting the hearing of a motion for partial summary judgment.
1
According to relator, the matters awaiting disposition are his motion for non-
joinder, motion for teleconference, motion to compel production, petition for writ of
mandamus, request for hearing, and motion for partial summary judgment.
2
See Hickman-Bey v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice-C.I.D., No. 07-09-0068-CV,
2009 Tex. App. Lexis 5627 (Tex.App.--Amarillo July 22, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(dismissing prior appeal in same case).
The second is a letter dated August 21, 2008, purportedly from relator to the district
clerk, requesting disposition of a motion for summary judgment and the court’s attention
of a petition for writ of mandamus.
Our consideration of relator’s petition proceeds no further than review of its form.
In important respects, relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. The petition does not include certification that every factual
statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record.
Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). Also, although the 2008 letter to the district clerk bears a file-
stamp, neither of the documents attached to the petition are certified or sworn. Tex. R.
App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Moreover, the petition does not include sworn copies of the
motions relator says are pending. Because of these defects of form, relator’s petition
does not establish even that the matters of which he complains have been brought to
Judge Enns’s attention. Before mandamus relief may issue, the relator must properly
establish that the district court was asked to perform a non-discretionary legal duty and
failed or refused to do so. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001,
orig. proceeding). For this reason alone, relator’s petition must be, and is, denied.
Accompanying relator’s petition is a motion to suspend Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.3(a)(1)(A) and allow relator to file but one copy of his petition. Relator is a
prison inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. The motion to suspend Rule
9.3(a)(1)(A) is granted to the extent we have accepted for filing the original copy of
2
relator’s petition and do not require submission of three additional copies as otherwise
required.3
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
3
Attached to the motion is a certificate of service stating that relator served
respondent and counsel for the real parties in interest with a copy of his petition.
3