in Re Barry Dewayne Minnfee, Relator

NO. 07-12-0119-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
APRIL 18, 2012
______________________________
In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,
Relator
______________________________
Original Proceeding
______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Pending before the court is Barry Dwayne Minnfee’s application for a writ of
mandamus. He requests a writ of mandamus against “Ms. Barbara Sucsy,” the district
clerk. We dismiss the petition.
Relator complains that the district clerk has failed to file a document entitled “Civil
Case Information Sheet.” Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy,
available only in limited circumstances. In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., L.P.,
235 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Texas Government Code §22.221
expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to writs necessary to
enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and writs against specified district or
county court judges in the court of appeals district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a),
(b) (West 2004). Consequently, unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, we have
no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk. In re Coronado,
980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
(noting because a district clerk is not a judge, a relator must show issuance of a writ of
mandamus is necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court of appeals). Relator’s
mandamus petition does not claim, nor does it appear to seek relief designed to enforce
this court’s jurisdiction. Relator does not allege that he has an appeal pending before
this court.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
2