in Re: Billy Shannon McKinney ( 2014 )

DENIED; and Opinion Filed December 15, 2014
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01513-CV
IN RE BILLY SHANNON MCKINNEY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 422nd Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 24008-422
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Myers
Relator filed this petition for the writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the
trial court to rule on his motion to compel the district attorney to allow him to purchase a copy of
the state’s working file. Relator’s petition includes attachments that purport to be copies of the
documents he filed in the trial court. His petition further includes an inmate’s declaration in
which he recites, “According to my belief the foregoing information and allegations of this
application for writ of mandamus are correct to the best of my knowledge.” Relator’s petition
does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure include specific requirements concerning the
form and contents of a petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7. Relator
has not certified “that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence
included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). In addition, his declaration does
not unequivocally state that the documents attached to the petition are true and correct copies of
the original documents filed in the trial court. Rather, he declares the facts to be correct
“according to my belief” and “to the best of my knowledge,” neither of which suffice to prove up
the documents as true copies of the documents filed in the trial court. See In re Butler, 270
S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (finding affidavit insufficient to
authenticate record because it did not state affiant had “personal knowledge the copy of the order
in the appendix is a correct copy of the original.”).
Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k), this Court strictly enforces the authentication requirements of rule 52 to
ensure the integrity of the mandamus record. On appeal, as at trial, the pro se litigant must
properly present his case. Strange v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 126 S.W.3d 676, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2004, pet. denied). If a pro se litigant is not required to comply with the applicable rules of
procedure, he would be given an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel.
Holt v. F.F. Enters., 990 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet. denied). There
cannot be two sets of procedural rules, one for litigants with counsel and the other for litigants
representing themselves. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978).
We DENY the petition.
141513F.P05 /Lana Myers/
LANA MYERS
JUSTICE
–2–