NUMBER 13-18-00302-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JUAN ENRIQUEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras
On June 13, 2018, relator Juan Enriquez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ
of mandamus in the above cause. Relator seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its
order of August 24, 2017 granting a motion to transfer venue from Nueces County, Texas,
to Karnes County, Texas. In the underlying trial court proceeding, relator sued Dwayne
Villanueva, the Sheriff of Karnes County, Texas, individually and in his official capacity,
for “damages, declaratory and injunctive relief for false imprisonment, cruel and unusual
punishment, denial of due process, and . . . the right to be free from imprisonment.”
According to the record provided by relator, after the case was transferred to a district
court in Karnes County, that court dismissed the lawsuit as “frivolous” by order issued on
September 27, 2017.1
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying
order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court
abuses its discretion when it fails to analyze or apply the law correctly or apply the law
correctly to the facts. In re Nationwide, 494 S.W.3d at 712; In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492
S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We determine the
adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against
the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding);
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited
circumstances involving manifest and urgent necessity; it is not available for grievances
that may be addressed by other remedies. City of Houston v. Houston Mun. Employees
Pension Sys., No. 17-0242, __ S.W.3d __, __, 2018 WL 2749728, at *10 (Tex. June 8,
2018); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 40. Further, although mandamus is not an equitable
remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles, and one such principle
1 This original proceeding arises from cause number 2017-DCV-2180-A in the 28th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Nanette Hasette. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2.
The case was transferred to cause number 17-09-00210-CVK in the 218th District Court of Karnes County,
Texas. Relator has appealed the ultimate ruling in the Karnes County case, and that appeal is currently
pending in appellate cause number 04-17-00719-CV in the San Antonio Court of Appeals. We note that
relator attacks the trial court’s order transferring venue in the briefing that he filed in that appeal. The
lengthy and convoluted criminal proceedings that spawned the instant civil litigation over relator’s
imprisonment is detailed, in part, in Enriquez v. State, No. 04-10-00071-CR, 2011 WL 2637370, at *1 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio July 6, 2011, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
2
is that “equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” In re Dorn, 471
S.W.3d 823 (Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Callahan v. Giles, 155 S.W.2d 793,
795 (Tex. 1941); see Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993)
(orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to
obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).
DORI CONTRERAS
JUSTICE
Delivered and filed the
15th day of June, 2018.
3
in Re Juan Enriquez
Combined Opinion