in Re: Roderick L. Reese ( 2005 )

                             NUMBER 13-05-138-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

               THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                  CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

_________________________________________________________________

                          IN RE: RODERICK L. REESE

_________________________________________________________________

                      On Petition for Writ of Mandamus _________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Garza

                      Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion^[1]

Pro se relator, Roderick L. Reese, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing relator=s civil case.  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. 

First, relator=s petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 insofar as (1) it is not verified; (2) it does not follow the requisite form delineated in rule 52.3; and (3) it fails to contain an appendix with certified or sworn copies of the order at issue or other documents showing the matter complained of.  See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 (discussing mandatory form and contents for original appellate proceedings). 

Second, relator had an adequate remedy by appeal.  To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion and that he has no adequate remedy by appeal.  In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005).  Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances and will issue only in situations involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies.  Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).  It is well‑settled that mandamus will not issue where there is a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal. See id.; In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135‑38  (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (technically available legal remedy may be inadequate when the remedy is uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate or ineffective).     Relator's complaint that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit could have been challenged by direct appeal. In fact, relator appealed this dismissal.  See Reese v. Bernhousen, No. 13-05-119-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 7089, *1-*2 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi Aug. 30, 2005, no pet. h.) (per curiam).  This Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.  See id.  Accordingly, relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 30th day of November, 2005.

---

^[1] See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d) (AWhen 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).