NUMBER 13-16-00246-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE LAKEITH RAQIB AMIR-SHARIF
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
On May 2, 2016, relator Lakeith Raquib Amir-Sharif, proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for writ of mandamus through which he seeks to compel Zenaida Silva, the District
Clerk of Bee County, Texas, to issue citations for each of the named defendants in the
underlying case and to compel the trial court2 to rescind or vacate an April 7, 2016 “stay”
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2This matter arises from trial court cause number B-16-1194-CV-A in the 36th District Court of Bee
County, Texas. In addition to the district clerk, the relator has designated the respondents herein as the
Honorable Janna Whatley, presiding judge of the 343rd District Court of Bee County, Texas, who issued
order. The April 7, 2016 order (1) directs the clerk of the court to send all pleadings in the
case to the Docketing Clerk, Law Enforcement Defense Division, Office of the Attorney
General, (2) directs the Attorney General to review the pleadings pursuant to Chapter 14
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and to file an amicus curiae advisory with
the court within sixty days, and (3) requests the Attorney General to obtain authority to
represent the defendants and answer on their behalf within 120 days after receipt of the
order.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must demonstrate that the trial court
clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re
Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 463 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360,
364 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124,
135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it
reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial
error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law correctly or apply the law correctly to the
facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt. L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam). The adequacy of an appellate remedy must be determined by
balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Team Rocket,
L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). This Court does not have
mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that issuance of the writ is
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West,
Westlaw through 2015 R.S.); In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d 874, 879 (Tex. App.—Waco
2008, orig. proceeding); In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
the April 7, 2016 order at issue, and the Honorable Joel B. Johnson, who was that same day assigned to
handle the underlying case.
2
2006, orig. proceeding); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).
Relator has filed a “Motion for Suspension of Rules in the Interest of Justice Being
Done,” through which he requests that “the appellate rules be suspended within reason
so that this appeal [sic] is not defeated because of some inconsequential, procedural,
technical, or remedial defect.” We liberally construe pro se pleadings and briefs.
Washington v. Bank of N.Y., 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.).
However, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require
them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v.
Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Washington, 362 S.W.3d at 854. To do
otherwise would give a pro se litigant an unfair advantage over a litigant who is
represented by counsel. Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d at 185; Shull v. United Parcel
Serv., 4 S.W.3d 46, 53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). Accordingly, we
DENY relator’s motion for the suspension of the rules.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction to consider the mandamus as against the District
Clerk and that relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain mandamus relief against the
trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED in part regarding
relator’s claims against the District Clerk and DENIED in part insofar as relator seeks
relief against the trial court.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
5th day of May, 2016.
3