in Re William Rogers

NUMBER 13-19-00358-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE WILLIAM ROGERS
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1
Relator William Rogers, an incarcerated inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition
for writ of mandamus in the above cause on July 23, 2019. Through this original
proceeding, relator seeks to set aside an order transferring venue of the underlying case
from the county in which relator is incarcerated, Bee County, to Nueces County on
grounds that Nueces County is the county of residence for the defendant in the underlying
case, Allen C. Lee. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.002 (providing the
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
general rule for venue); id. § 15.019 (governing mandatory venue in inmate litigation).
This Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from
Lee.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy issued at the discretion of the court. In re
Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief
by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is a clear abuse of
discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of
Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d
833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A party may file a petition for writ of
mandamus to enforce mandatory venue provisions, and in such cases, need only show
that the trial court abused its discretion. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 15.0642;
In re Applied Chem. Magnesias Corp., 206 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Tex. 2006) (orig.
proceeding).
A petition for writ of mandamus must comply with the requirements of the appellate
rules. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.
1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Athans, 458 S.W.3d 675, 676 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include
a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the
appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.”
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, the relator must furnish an appendix or record
that is sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying
2
the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for
the record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the limited record provided, the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that
relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for
writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
1st day of August, 2019.
3