in Re Richard Chuba

Opinion issued March 10, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00830-CV

———————————

in re Richard Chuba, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          By petition for writ of mandamus, relator, Richard Chuba, challenges the trial court’s September 1, 2010 order dismissing the underlying personal-injury case for want of prosecution.[1]  Relator also appealed the trial court’s dismissal order, but that appeal was dismissed on relator’s own request.     

          Relator is not entitled to mandamus relief.  His petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Tex. R. App. P. 9.5 (requiring relator to serve copy of petition on all parties); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file mandamus record containing all documents material to claim for relief). And, relator fails to explain why the appeal he voluntarily dismissed was inadequate to remedy his complaints. See also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (explaining that person seeking mandamus relief must establish lack of adequate appellate remedy). 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.   

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Alcala, and Sharp.

---

[1]           The underlying case is Richard Chuba v. Riverside Inn, No. 2010-30358 in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas.  Relator’s petition names the Honorable Patricia Hancock as the respondent in this original proceeding.  Judge Hancock is no longer the presiding judge of the 113th District Court; the Honorable John Donovan is now the presiding judge of that court.  Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2, Judge Donovan is substituted for Judge Hancock as respondent.  See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(a).  Given our disposition of relator’s petition, we will not abate this original proceeding for reconsideration of relator’s complaints by Judge Donovan.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 7.2(b).