in Re Jay Goodman ( 2014 )

NUMBER 13-14-00749-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JAY GOODMAN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1
Relator, Jay Goodman, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on
December 22, 2014, through which he requests that we order the trial court to issue
rulings on: (1) relator’s first motion to compel discovery from real party in interest, Lanell
Doss; (2) relator’s motion to rule on deemed admissions; and (3) relator’s motion for
“court’s position on expert report.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding); see Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show
himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements,
the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent
evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the
appendix or record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that
relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus
relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a)
(specifying the required contents for the record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought. The
petition for writ of mandamus fails generally to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 52 and, further, relator has not furnished this Court with any supporting
documentation in the form of an appendix or record. Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus filed in this cause is DENIED. See id. R. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 23rd
day of December, 2014.
2