in Re Nathaniel Jones III , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5375 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                          In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    _________________
    NO. 09-15-00129-CV
    _________________
    IN RE NATHANIEL JONES III
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Original Proceeding
    ________________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    Nathaniel Jones III filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a declaration
    stating that he is unable to pay costs. Jones complains in his petition that the judge
    of the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas will not rule on a motion
    that he filed in that court. From the sparse information that Jones provides in his
    petition, we are unable to identify the cause number assigned by the District Clerk
    to the matter or determine if Jones has taken any action to bring the motion he
    claims he filed to the trial court’s attention.
    On April 16, 2015, we notified Jones that his petition failed to include a
    declaration that identified all of the prior lawsuits that he had filed, and that he also
    1
    failed to provide the Court with a certified copy of his trust account statement.
    Both of these documents are required to accompany suits filed by inmates when
    they file unsworn declarations stating they are unable to pay costs. See Tex. Civ.
    Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003 (West 2002), § 14.004 (West Supp. 2014).
    Because the information in Jones’s petition does not comply with the requirements
    of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Clerk sent Jones a letter notifying him of
    the numerous deficiencies with his petition for mandamus. The Clerk notified
    Jones of the deadline by which he was required to correct the deficiencies in his
    petition. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 9.5; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a),
    52.3(a), 52.7. The Clerk’s letter warns Jones that if the deficiencies with his
    petition were not corrected, his original proceeding for writ of mandamus would be
    dismissed as frivolous. Jones did not file a response to the letter the Clerk sent him
    by the deadline he was given. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).
    The provisions in Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
    apply to original mandamus proceedings filed with appellate courts. See In re
    Price, No. 07-15-00137-CV, 
    2015 WL 1883924
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr.
    23, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
    Ann. § 14.002 (West Supp. 2014). An inmate’s failure to comply with an appellate
    court’s notice justifies a conclusion that the inmate’s petition is frivolous. See In re
    2
    Kennedy, No. 12-15-00026-CV, 
    2015 WL 455752
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Jan.
    30, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Because Jones did not file an affidavit or
    declaration identifying his previous filings, his petition for writ of mandamus is
    dismissed as frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2).
    PETITION DISMISSED.
    PER CURIAM
    Submitted on May 27, 2015
    Opinion Delivered May 28, 2015
    Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: NO. 09-15-00129-CV

Citation Numbers: 464 S.W.3d 874, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5375

Judges: Kreger, Horton, Johnson

Filed Date: 5/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2024