^ILEO IN COURT OF APPEALS IN THE 129i Coun of Appeais District TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 12-14-00016-CV f\ SEP 2jf 2015 A JUAN ENRIQUEZ, •^PAW-eSTES. CLERK Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRAD LIVINGSTON, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the 369th District Court of Anderson County, No. XXX-XX-XXXX APPELLANT'S ADVISORY TO THE COURT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Juan Enriquez, Plaintiff-Appellant, herein informs the Court that he has filed with the lower court a motion for nunc pro tunc correction of order to reflect it was not mailed to Appellant until July 1, 2015, as reflected in the postmark on the envelope and that he has requested the Reporter from Travis County to file the Reporter's Records in this case. A copy of the motion and letter are attached. Respectfully submitted, XJu^n Enrique5^- / V^_J> C^i7122 TDCJ-Michael 2664 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, TX 75886 Certificate of Service I, Juan Enriquez, certify that a correct copy of the above advisory was served by placing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on September 21, 2015, addressed to Ken .Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, P. O. Box 12548, Austin, TX 78711. CAVSn NO. 369-5019 JUAN EHRICHEZ, § • IV T?TR DISTRICT COT7FT Plaintiff* § § v. § 369TH JOBICIAt. DISTRICT BRAD LXVXNGSGNi BT ftl,., 5 Defendants* '5 ANDERSON COrjNTY* TEXAS ptAIITTIFF'S HOTTER PQ% WTKC PRO TOST, CORRECTED ORDEfr TO TFF HOJmGRABLB JUr>o exact rate T T J- -J. * Tha date when rlaintiff received a copy of the judgment is raore than 20 tfayn at tor it was signoi'- • II. The district clerk's civil docket does not reflect when the order wne mailod to itaintiff. Also* the plaintiff aa a prisoner docs not have access to the mail records of the Michael Unit* T«xas Department of Criminal Justice correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ_CID). Plaintiff, thus, needs an evidentiary hearing where he cat? subpoena A. Cargill* mailroora supervisor, Michael Unit/ to testify whan mail from the district clerk for plaintiff reached the Michael 'Unit fros? April 22, 2015, to -July IS, 2015, and Janice Staples, district cl'-Tk of Andexsian County, to testify whan she mailed the orddr of dismissal to plaintiff. T Vv *. * Rule 305a, supra, seer,ions <•'! through 6 provide: 4. Kq notice of judgment* If within tv/enty day® after the- ^udgrasne or other appealable order is signsd, a party adversely affected by it or hia attorney has neither received the notice required by paragraph (3) of this rule oor acquired actual knov?ledgs of the order, then with respect to that party all the periods mentioned in paragraph (1) shall begin on the date that such party or hi,?, attorney received such notice or acquired actual knowledge of the signing, wnichevar occurred first, but in no agent shall such periods begin iccte than ninety days after fchtaoriginal ^udginsnc or other appealable order was signed. 5. Motion, notice and hearing. .In order to establish the application of pargraph (4) of this rule, the party adversely affected io required to prove in the trial court, on sworn motion and notice, the date on which the party or his attorney first eifche received a nfctics of the judgment oc acquired actual knowledge of *jft© signing and that this date was more than twenty days after the jufigmetn was signed. 6. Nunc pro tunc order. When a corrected ludgaient he© been nigned after expiration of. the court's plenary power pursuant to Pule 316, the periods mentioned in paragraph (1) of this rule shall run from the isifjtdiatje of the .signing the corrected judgment with respect to asfjy complaint that would not be applicable to the original djacurasnt. V. A copy of the July 1, 2015, postmarked envelope frora the district clerk was provided as EXHIBIT a to Plaintiff's petition for mandamus filed September 14, 2015, by mailbox rule filing. VI. Plaintiff did not receive notice of the Ipril 22, 2015, signing until after July 1, 2015, nor did he acquire actual knowledge of tfca signing until after July 1, 2015. WHEREFORE, fREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that this motion be granted and that the motion be set for evidentiary hearing at an early a, time and date as is consistent with the business of the court. Respectfully submitted, /Juan Enriquez / ^227122 . ^ TDCJ-Michael 2664 FPf 2051 Tennessee Colony, TX 758S6 Certificate of Service I, Juan Enriquez, certify that a correct copy of the above motion was served by placing same in the United States wail, postage prepaid, on September 21, 2015, addressed to Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas. P. 0. Sox 12548, Hustln, TX 78711. Juan Enrigqe,e 221122 WCj-Hichae! i«64 fK 2054 Ti&nneas's© Colony, 'PS 75886 Se p e.oK»»e r 21, 201$ Official Reporter 34*Sth m .strict Co«rt Travia County Courthouse «?* O. Bos 174^ Austin, TX 79767 Re: Cauaa Ko. D-1-GS-1S-CC0377 Jumn P-nrin«wsa v. Brad I.ivJnaston WO. 155-1*-000X«-CV„ Twelfth Court of.' ^ppealo Dear f-ir or ?ia£awH§ On Aprils* ?0l-3f there wa« a hearing in. th$ S£5th District Court on «• ma*"J#n to recnc* Ju^ae VfisJenos&y* Also* oft June 26,2013, there waa • a hearing before Judge \:elenes!r/ to trensfoir venue in the above referenced case. This case l« now on appeal in the Tw&fcfth Court of Appeals. I n©t&d a transcript of both noarinqa fti-ac v?it*» the Twelfth Court o** Appeals. I was proceeding in forma pauperis in Travis? County. I expect ffiravia County will pay your chArqea las the •transcripts. Very truly your», Ohia n En r ici©«s ccj *?an Pass ton Clerk, Twelfth court; of Appeals