Order entered December 6, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01143-CV
IN RE ARTURO SOLIS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas1
Trial Court Cause No. C10-11-40751
ORDER
Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Whitehill
Before the Court are relator’s October 17, 2017, October 23, 2017, and October 27, 2017
motions in which he seeks the following relief: (1) an order commanding prison officials to
return legal materials purportedly confiscated from relator’s cell on October 16, 2017; (2) an
order directing the Tenth District Court of Appeals to transfer all pleadings filed in cause number
10-17-00286-CV to this Court; (3) an order directing the trial court and court reporter to file in
this Court all post-judgment pleadings filed by relator in the trial court and the Clerk’s Record
and Reporter’s Record purportedly designated by relator; and (4) an order granting relator a 60-
day extension of time to file “a more adequate Motion for Rehearing, with Motion for En Banc
Reconsideration” and to “correct the record” before the motions for rehearing are decided.
1
Although originally filed in the Tenth Court of Appeals and docketed as case number 10-17-00286-CR, this
original proceeding was transferred to this Court pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code § 73.001 and due to recusals on the
Tenth Court of Appeals. See TEX. SUP. CT. ORDER, Misc. Docket No. 17–9127 (Sept. 28, 2017).
This Court does not have writ jurisdiction over prison officials unless it is necessary to
enforce our own jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(a) (court of appeals may only issue
writ of mandamus against district and county judges or as necessary to enforce jurisdiction of
appellate court). We disposed of this proceeding before the alleged confiscation of relator’s
materials, and relator has not shown how the alleged confiscation jeopardizes our jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we DISMISS relator’s motions to the extent relator seeks an order directed to
prison officials.
The Tenth Court of Appeals transferred all documents filed by relator in 10-17-00286-
CV to this Court. Accordingly, we DENY AS MOOT relator’s requests for an order directing
the Tenth Court of Appeals to transfer those documents to this Court.
Finally, it is relator’s responsibility in a mandamus proceeding to provide this Court with
a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Lizcano v. Chatham, 416
S.W.3d 862, 863 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (Alcala, J. concurring); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.
Further, the rules governing deadlines for designating and filing a clerk’s record and reporter’s
record do not apply in original proceedings such as this proceeding. Compare TEX. R. APP. P.
25.2, 26.2, 34, 35.2, 35.3 with TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3, 52.7. Accordingly, we DENY relator’s
requests for an order directing the trial court and court reporter to file documents in this
proceeding and DENY relator’s request for an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing
and motion for rehearing en banc.
/s/ ADA BROWN
JUSTICE