in Re Thomas Florence ( 2013 )

Opinion issued April 18, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00261-CV
———————————
IN RE THOMAS FLORENCE, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Thomas Florence, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus,
challenging the trial court’s January 16, 2013 order dismissing his case for want of
prosecution. 1
1
The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of: Thomas Wayne Florence
and Wanette Marie Florence, No. 12-Fd-2877, in the County Court at Law No. 3
of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable Christopher Dupoy presiding.
Standard of Review
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is available only when (1) a
trial court clearly abuses its discretion and (2) there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004)
(orig. proceeding); In re Unitec Elevator Servs. Co., 178 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding).
In his sole issue, relator complains that the trial court abused its discretion in
dismissing his case for want of prosecution. Generally, mandamus will issue to
direct a trial court to rescind an order only when a relator has no other adequate
remedy. Downs v. Trevathan, 783 S.W.2d 689, 690 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding) (denying motion for leave to file petition for writ of
mandamus). It is the relator’s burden to show that he has no adequate remedy
available at law. See In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Relator has not
shown that he has no adequate remedy on appeal. See Downs, 783 S.W.2d at 690.
Conclusion
We deny the petition.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
2