in Re Meera Singh and Sam Houston

NUMBER 13-13-00688-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE MEERA SINGH AND SAM HOUSTON
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relators, Meera Singh and Sam Houston, proceeding pro se, filed a document
entitled “Petition for Preemptory Writ of Mandamus” in the above cause on December 9,
2013. The document is unclear regarding the specific actions or orders complained of
or the nature of the relief sought by relators.2 This Court previously dismissed an
appeal filed by relators arising from the same trial court proceedings. See Singh v.
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).
2
Relators have requested leave to file the petition. Relators’ request for leave to file the petition
for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no longer require a
relator to file a motion for leave to file an original proceeding. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52 & cmt.
Bank of Am., N.A., No. 13-13-00406-CV, 2013 WL 5970894, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi Nov. 7, 2013, no pet. h.) (mem. op. per curiam).
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relators must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relators have the burden of establishing both prerequisites to
mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149,
151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); see also 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 relators 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. In this regard, it is clear that relators must furnish an appendix or
record sufficient to support their 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).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their
burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at
135–36. In fact, at the present time, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the
2
relief sought by relators. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief
sought therein are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
18th day of December, 2013.
3