in Re: Richard M. King, Jr. ( 2011 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00059-CV
______________________________
IN RE: RICHARD M. KING, JR.
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Complaining of a number of things, Richard M. King, Jr., seeks mandamus relief against
Judge Scott McDowell, of the 62nd Judicial District Court. King, previously determined to be a
“vexatious litigant,” was barred by the then Judge Jim Lovett of the 6th Judicial District Court
from “filing anything under any law, statute, rule or authority . . ., without first obtaining the
permission of the presiding judge of the 6th District Court.” A suit filed by King “against Marvin
Ann Patterson and her deputy clerks for withholding . . . evidence . . . that would result in the
reversal of King‟s wrongful conviction,” was dismissed by Judge McDowell. King claims that he
“filed an application for writ of habeas corpus . . . in the 6th Judicial District Court in Lamar
County, Texas,” complaining of Patterson‟s alleged admission to possessing “the evidence in
question,” and received a response from Judge McDowell “stating that one ground has „been
litigated‟ and making no mention of the other ground.” King, believing that Judge McDowell
relied on the order issued by Judge Lovett, claimed that the court did not file or consider the
application for writ of habeas corpus. He asks this Court to order Judge McDowell to “present the
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in it‟s [sic] unedited form to the 6th District Court.”
To be entitled to mandamus relief, King must show that he has no adequate remedy at law
to redress the alleged harm and that he seeks to compel an act that is ministerial, not discretionary
or involving a judicial decision. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984). An act is
2
ministerial if it constitutes a duty clearly fixed and required by law. In re Birdwell, 224 S.W.3d
864, 865 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding).
Due to the nature of this remedy, it is King‟s burden to properly request and show
entitlement to the mandamus relief. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7; 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.”).
King had the obligation to provide us with evidence in support of his claim that he is
entitled to mandamus relief. No portion of any clerk‟s record or reporter‟s record has been filed
with this Court. The absence of a mandamus record prevents us from evaluating the
circumstances of this case and, thus, the merits of King‟s complaints. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7;
Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426.
We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: June 9, 2011
Date Decided: June 10, 2011
3