in Re Markus Antonius Green

NUMBER 13-14-000208-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MARKUS ANTONIUS GREEN
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Markus Antonius Green, proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled
“Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief from Prison Officials at Neal Unit” in the above
cause on April 7, 2014. Relator states that he is seeking to “restrain” prison officials from
“withholding [relator’s] eyeglasses” for the purposes of “theft” or confiscation as
“retaliation for [relator’s exercise of his legal rights to grieve against State officials.”
Relator further seeks to compel prison officials to return his personal law books to him.
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
Because the document does not reference an order or judgment subject to appeal
and relator asks us to command a public officer to perform an act, we construe this
document as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a), (d);
In re Castle Texas Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig.
proceeding) (“The function of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by
virtue of their official or quasi-official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”)
(citing Boston v. Garrison, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67, 70 (1953)).
To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no
adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel
is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young
v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of
mandamus should be denied. See id.
It is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus
relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re
Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding); see
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.
proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled
to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). 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 generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. The relator must also file an appendix and record
2
sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the
required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the
record); see also Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding).
In addition to other deficiencies, relator’s pleading does not include either an
appendix or a record and is unsupported by any documentation or evidence. The Court,
having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the
applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus
relief. State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, the petition for writ of
mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
9th day of April, 2014.
3