in Re Dallas James Moore, Relator ( 2019 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-18-00435-CV
________________________
IN RE DALLAS JAMES MOORE, RELATOR
Original Proceeding
Arising From Proceedings Before the 320th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 73,321-D; Honorable Don Emerson, Presiding
February 25, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Relator, Dallas James Moore, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Don Emerson to rule on his petition
for writ of habeas corpus. This court takes judicial notice that the Honorable Don Emerson
retired effective December 31, 2018.1 The Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon now holds the
office as Judge Emerson’s successor.
Rule 7.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides for automatic
substitution of a public official in an appeal or original proceeding if the original party
ceases to hold office before the appeal’s or original proceeding’s final disposition. TEX.
R. APP. P. 7.2(a). Judge Sirmon is now substituted as the Respondent in this original
proceeding.
Rule 7.2(b) provides that an original proceeding must be abated “to allow the
successor to reconsider the original party’s decision. In all other cases, the suit will not
abate, and the successor will be bound by the appellate court’s judgment or order as if
the successor was the original party.” TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). In this proceeding, Relator
complains that Judge Emerson failed to issue a ruling in his habeas corpus proceeding
by which he claimed he was being illegally detained by the Potter County Sheriff’s
Department.
No decision being made by Judge Emerson, there is nothing for his successor to
“reconsider” and therefore, no need to abate this proceeding. Regarding the merits of
Relator’s request for mandamus relief, we observe he failed to comply with the
requirements of Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.2 We recognize
1 This court has the power to take judicial notice when the facts noticed are not subject to
reasonable dispute. In re Bramlett, 07-09-0113-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 3177, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
April 30, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing City of Houston v. Todd, 41 S.W.3d 289, 301 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).
2 Relator requests that this court contact the Potter County District Clerk for a copy of his writ of
habeas corpus and other necessary documents. The burden to provide a sufficient record for the requested
relief falls on Relator and this court has no duty to obtain the necessary documents. See Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992).
2
that pro se filings may be reviewed less stringently than those filed by attorneys; Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972); however, a party
proceeding pro se is not exempt from complying with rules of procedure. See Wheeler v.
Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005); Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d
181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978).
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Per Curiam
3