in Re Vicker Sichanthavong, Relator ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-19-00401-CV
________________________
IN RE VICKER SICHANTHAVONG, RELATOR
Original Proceeding
Arising From Proceedings Before the County Court at Law Number One
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 107,233-1-CV; Honorable Walton Weaver, Presiding
January 8, 2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before PIRTLE, PARKER, and DOSS, JJ.
Proceeding pro se, Relator, Vicker Sichanthavong, seeks a writ of mandamus to
compel the Honorable Walton Weaver to allow a contract case that was filed with the trial
court clerk to proceed. Relator also seeks permission to “[submit] his motion to criminal
Court for [preliminary] hearing” and for the case to be heard by a grand jury. Finally,
Relator seeks to have Judge Weaver disqualified from the case and another judge
assigned. For the reasons expressed herein, we deny the requested relief.
BACKGROUND
As best as can be deciphered from Relator’s petition, he rented a house to Deidra
Whitfield. The house was destroyed by fire and Relator attempted to sue her for breach
of contract and to recover damages. He asserts that Judge Weaver will not allow the
case to move forward unless Relator is represented by counsel.
Relator relies on Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex. 1982), in which the
Court recognized that Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to
prosecute or defend a suit in person or by an attorney. In Ex parte Shaffer, a court order
requiring a party in a contempt proceeding to be represented by counsel was found to
have abridged his right to be heard himself. Id. The Court noted, however, that lack of
representation should not be used to unnecessarily delay a trial or abuse the system. Id.
MANDAMUS STANDARD OF REVIEW
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show that
(1) the trial court abused its discretion and (2) that no adequate appellate remedy exists.
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per
curiam). When seeking mandamus relief, a relator bears the burden of proving these two
requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
To establish an abuse of discretion, the relator must demonstrate the trial court
acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles.
See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). To
establish no adequate remedy by appeal, the relator must show there is no adequate
remedy at law to address the alleged harm and that the act requested is a ministerial act,
2
not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist.
Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
ANALYSIS
We first address the mandatory requirements for filing a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Relator substantially complied with
most of those requirements. The deficiency, however, is vital to our consideration of the
issue presented to this court. Rule 52.3(k) requires that a petition include an Appendix
with a certified or sworn copy of any order being complained of or other documentation
showing the matter of which the relator complains. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).
Relator’s petition contains a document entitled “Appendix” followed by a list of legal
authorities. However, there is no appendix included with Relator’s petition. More
importantly, the petition is not accompanied by any documentation supporting the
underlying contract case of which he complains to this court, nor is there any
documentation of his request to proceed pro se and Judge Weaver’s denial of that
request.
Pro se litigants are not exempt from rules of procedure. Pena v. McDowell, 201
S.W.3d 665, 667 (Tex. 2006). Even if Relator had substantially complied with the
requirements of Rule 52.3, nothing in his petition shows an abuse of discretion by Judge
Weaver.
Although Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure allows a civil litigant to
prosecute or defend a case without the assistance of counsel; TEX. R. CIV. P. 7, the trial
court has considerable discretion in managing its docket. In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d 532,
3
534 (Tex. 2015). Pro se litigants will not be treated differently than a party who is
represented by a licensed attorney. Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315
S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Relator’s recent unskilled attempts
to prosecute civil suits in Judge Weaver’s court and in this court without the assistance of
counsel have resulted in considerable expenditure of judicial resources. See
Sichanthavong v. Whitfield, 07-19-00363-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9604, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Amarillo October 31, 2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); Sichanthavong v. Hernandez,
07-19-00145-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 10020, at*2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 18,
2019, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); In re Sichanthavong, No. 07-19-00312-CV, 2019 Tex. App.
LEXIS 10022, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 18, 2019, orig. proceeding). The record
before us does not demonstrate that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or
without reference to any guiding rules or principles in expecting a pro se litigant to abide
by the rules of procedure or seek the assistance of counsel.
CONCLUSION
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
4