in Re Richard Chuba

Opinion issued March 10, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-01152-CV

———————————

IN RE Richard Chuba, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Relator Richard Chuba has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial court refuses to (1) accept for filing and rule on relator’s pro se motions and (2) provide relator with copies of “any and all orders” entered in the underlying case.[1]

          Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., Tex. R. App. P. 9.5 (requiring relator to serve copy of petition on all parties); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(a) (requiring that petition contain complete list of all parties and counsel); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7 (requiring relator to file mandamus record containing all documents material to claim for relief).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Bland.

---

[1]           The underlying case is Richard Chuba v. Riverside Inn, No. 2010-47535 in the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas.  Relator’s petition names the Honorable Patricia Hancock as the respondent in this original proceeding.  Judge Hancock is no longer the presiding judge of the 113th District Court; the Honorable John Donovan is now the presiding judge of that court.  Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2, Judge Donovan is substituted for Judge Hancock as respondent.  See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(a).  Given our disposition of relator’s petition, we will not abate this original proceeding for reconsideration of relator’s complaints by Judge Donovan.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 7.2(b).