Order entered October 31, 2019 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01400-CV SAMUEL T. RUSSELL, Appellant V. DALLAS COUNTY, CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, PARKLAND HOSPITAL DISTRICT, AND DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FUND, Appellees On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-17-00880 ORDER Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Richter1 Appellant filed an instrument called “Appellant’s Opposition” in which he complains that our mandate in a different appeal (Russell v. Dallas County, No. 05-17-01475-CV) named the presiding judge of the 162nd Judicial District Court instead of the retired judge who actually presided over the case. Consulting our records, we see that the mandate in that case is actually addressed to the 162nd Judicial District Court and not to any particular judge. Appellant 1 The Hon. Martin Richter, Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Retired, sitting by assignment. apparently intends to complain about our notice letter accompanying the mandate, which is addressed to the presiding judge of the 162nd Judicial District Court by name. Appellant further states that he has filed a federal lawsuit “questioning the mandate.” Appellant doesn’t expressly ask us for any relief, but we surmise that he wants us to amend the mandate in No. 05-17-01475-CV. Because he hasn’t shown any legal grounds for such relief, we DENY Appellant’s Opposition. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE