DENIED and Opinion Filed May 12, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-00415-CV
IN RE PETER BEASLEY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-23-00573
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Before the Court is relator’s May 4, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus
wherein relator, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order, seeks to vacate a
local administrative judge’s order denying relator’s request for permission to
(1) prosecute, pro se, a bill of review that he originally filed through counsel and
(2) file, pro se, new appeals and original proceedings related to his bill of review.
Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show a clear abuse of
discretion and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator bears the
burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show he is entitled to relief.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires a relator to file an appendix with his petition that
contains “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other
document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Rule
52.7(a)(1) requires the relator to file with the petition “a certified or sworn copy of
every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any
underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Rule 52.7(a)(2) requires the
relator to include with his petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any
relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered
in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the
matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2).
There is a question as to whether relator’s unsworn declaration satisfied his
required compliance with these rules. But we conclude that answering this question
is not necessary to our disposition of this case. Even if relator’s unsworn declaration
satisfied these requirements, a question on which we express no opinion, after
reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has
failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a).
–2–
We also deny relator’s motion for temporary relief as moot.
/Erin A. Nowell//
230415f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
–3–