in Re Bobbie DeWayne Grubbs, Relator ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00092-CV
IN RE BOBBIE DEWAYNE GRUBBS, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
April 5, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
In this original proceeding, relator Bobbie Dewayne Grubbs, a prison inmate
appearing pro se, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. It appears relator is the
plaintiff in an underlying lawsuit pending in the 181st District Court. Relator’s mandamus
petition does not name an individual respondent but relief is sought against the “181st
Court.” We take judicial notice that the presiding judge of the 181st District Court is the
Honorable John B. Board. Because of our disposition of this proceeding, we will assume
Judge Board is the intended respondent of relator’s petition.1 Relator seeks our order
1 The petition does not contain the required proof of service. See TEX. R. APP. P.
9.5(d),(e). We therefore have no indication the respondent and real parties in interest are
aware relator initiated this original proceeding.
compelling Judge Board to respond to relator’s requests concerning the status of service
of process and various motions he apparently has filed in the underlying litigation.
The writ of mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the
violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker
v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
In a mandamus proceeding, it is the relator’s burden to demonstrate entitlement to
the relief requested. In re Posey, No. 07-03-00518-CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 695, at
*1-2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 22, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). With the petition,
the relator must file a record containing a certified or sworn copy of every document that
is material to the relator’s claim for relief and which was filed in any underlying proceeding.
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). The petition must contain a certification that the relator has
reviewed the petition and concluded that each factual statement in the petition is
supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P.
52.3(j).
Through a proper mandamus record it was relator’s burden to conclusively prove
1) Judge Board had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, 2) performance was
demanded, and 3) Judge Board refused to act. See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals,
837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Posey, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS
695, at *2 (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979)). Relator did not
present proof of any of these requirements and therefore has made no showing that
Judge Board has abused his discretion. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of
2
mandamus is denied. To the extent relator’s petition requested additional relief in this
court, it also is denied.
James T. Campbell
Justice
3