in Re: R. Wayne Johnson, A/K/A Legal Eagle

NUMBER 13-01-697-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

__________________________________________________________________

IN RE: R. WAYNE JOHNSON a/k/a LEGAL EAGLE

__________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Prohibition or, Alternatively, Writ of Mandamus

__________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Castillo

Opinion Per Curiam

On October 9, 2001, Relator R. Wayne Johnson a/k/a Legal Eagle filed hispro se petition for writ of prohibition or, alternatively, for writ of mandamus. Relator asserts that he has filed a suit styled Johnson v. Davis, assigned cause number B-01-1273-CV-B below. He urges that defendant's counsel in that case has filed a motion for contempt against him because he did not obtain the permission of the trial court to file any more lawsuits. He explains that the 36^thdistrict judge, before whom the motion for contempt is pending, is the administrative judge of Bee County from whom Relator must obtain permission to file any more lawsuits. Relator adds that he has an appeal now pending before this Court arising from a judgment entered below in cause number B-01-1159-CV-B. He asserts that, because the judgment appealed from is not final, he "can file suits until all appeals are exhausted," although upon receiving notice of the motion for contempt he did seek permission from the 36^th district court to sue. Relator adds that, as of the date of the filing of the petition now before us, the trial court has not ruled on his request. He seeks a writ of prohibition or mandamus to stop the 36^th district court from signing a contempt order. Relator urges that any day Respondent could sign the order of contempt and money would be taken from his trust fund.

Writ of Prohibition

A court of appeals may issue all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (Vernon Supp. 2000). A writ of prohibition is used to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful interference with the enforcement of a superior court's orders and judgments. In re Johnson, 961 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Tex. App. - Corpus Christi 1997) (orig. proceeding), citing Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex.1989). Nothing in Relator's petition points to any trial court action or, as alleged, expected action in cause number B-01-1273-CV-B below that would interfere with the jurisdiction of this Court in appeal number 13-01-00550-CV, which arises from a separate case below. Accordingly, we deny Relator's petition for writ of prohibition.

Writ of Mandamus

In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must show (1) a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and (2) that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Here, Relator complains that the trial court could sign a contempt order which, once signed, would deny him an adequate remedy on appeal. Relator has not established his right to relief by mandamus. Therefore, we deny Relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 1st day of November, 2001.