Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 22, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00667-CV
IN RE: YANIKA DANIELS, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 303rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-08690
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein
Opinion by Justice Osborne
Yanika Daniels (Realtor) filed a pro se petition1 seeking a writ of mandamus
ordering the judge of the 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas to
vacate the June 23, 2021 “temporary orders” in the underlying suit affecting the
parent-child relationship or, in the alternative, to issue a “writ of habeas corpus”
compelling the return of her child. Relator also filed her second motion for
emergency relief on October 11, 2021.
1
We note the rules apply equally to all parties, whether a party is represented by counsel or not. In re
Vasquez, No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015 WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig.
proceeding). If a pro se litigant is not required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, she would
be given an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. In re McKinney, No. 05-14-
01513-CV, 2014 WL 7399301, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding).
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 prohibits the filing of documents
containing sensitive data, including the name of any person who was a minor when
the underlying suit was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. A document containing
sensitive information may not be filed with the court unless the sensitive information
is redacted or it is required by a statute, court rule, or administrative regulation. See
id. 9.9(b). Both Relator’s appendix, which is attached to her mandamus petition,
and her October 11, 2021 motion for emergency relief include documents showing
prohibited sensitive data.2
Accordingly, we strike both Relator’s October 11, 2021 motion for emergency
relief and Relator’s August 5, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus. See id. 9.9. Also,
we direct the Clerk of the Court to remove those documents from this Court’s
website. See id. 9.9(e).
This original proceeding is dismissed without prejudice.
/Leslie Osborne/
210667f.p05 LESLIE OSBORNE
JUSTICE
2
We note that on October 5, 2021, this Court ordered Relator’s October 4, 2021 motion for emergency
relief stricken for failure to comply with Rule 9.9.
–2–