eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2012-10

in Re Antonio M. Lacy ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •                                 NUMBER 13-12-00633-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE ANTONIO M. LACY
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Antonio M. Lacy, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause
on October 19, 2012. Relator seeks to set aside an order signed on May 17, 2011,
dismissing the underlying civil proceeding under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.001-.014 (West
2002 & Supp. 2011). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, relator must show
that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.
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).
In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas,
    290 S.W.3d 204
    , 207 (Tex. 2009) (orig.
proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004)
(orig. proceeding). Relator has the burden to establish 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 also 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 the instant case, relator seeks to set aside an order that we have already
affirmed on direct appeal. See Lacy v. Jackson, No. 13-11-00364-CV, 2012 Tex. App.
LEXIS 1128, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 9, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Accordingly, the Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden
to show that he lacks an adequate remedy by law. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
    Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135
    –36. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
24th day of October, 2012.
2