DocketNumber： 07-01-00399-CR
Citation Numbers： 71 S.W.3d 540, 2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 2147
Judges： Boyd, Reavis, Johnson
Filed Date： 3/22/2002
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.
Relator Joseph Stewart, III brings this appeal from the trial court's denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus. Finding no error in the trial court's ruling, we affirm the order of the trial court.
On August 21, 2001, relator filed a pro se petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus in which he challenged his assignment to a psychiatric unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division and its treatment of him, involuntarily, by the use of anti-psychotic drugs. (1) In his petition, he alleged he was deprived of his due process rights in violation of Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S. Ct. 1028 108 L. Ed. 2d 178 (1990). A copy of the petition was served on the Lubbock County District Attorney, who did not file a response. On September 16, 2001, without a hearing, the trial court denied the petition. Hence, this appeal.
On November 13, 2001, relator filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel on appeal. On November 26, 2001, we disposed of this motion by noting that his claim was in the nature of a civil action for which no right to appointment of counsel exists. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 1997). Relator filed his pro se brief on November 29, 2001, and an amended pro se brief on December 7, 2001. On December 21, 2001, we notified relator that we had overruled his "motion for rehearing." In response, relator contacted us by letter dated January 21, 2002, questioning whether we had made a final disposition of his appeal. We had not finally disposed of his appeal and we now proceed to consider the merits of his appeal.
In his summary of argument in his brief, relator succinctly states his contention that habeas corpus is the proper mechanism for challenging additional conditions of his incarceration, even if the remedy sought would not result in his release. In support of that proposition, relator cites Leahy v. Estelle, 371 F. Supp. 951, aff'd, 503 F.2d 1401 (5th Cir. 1974). In that case, the court cited numerous examples of the use of habeas corpus to challenge confinement in a particular place or under particular conditions. Id. at 953-54. It particularly noted Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct.1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973), in which the Court stated, "when a prisoner is put under additional and unconstitutional restraints during his lawful custody . . . habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making the custody legal." Id. at 499.
However, it is important to recognize that the holdings in Leahy and Preiser were bottomed on the federal habeas corpus statute, 26 U.S.C. § 2254(b), and recited that the statute "does not deny the federal courts the power to fashion appropriate relief other than the immediate release." Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487 (citing Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 88 S. Ct. 1549, 20 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1968)). Because Preiser involved a challenge to the removal of "good time" credit, it concerned the length rather than the conditions of confinement, making the statement with regard to other conditions of confinement dicta. The case reaffirmed decisions holding section 1983 (2) actions are the proper remedy for challenges to the conditions, rather than the length, of confinement. 411 U.S. at 499. Federal courts have consistently construed federal habeas corpus relief to require exhaustion of state remedies. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 489; Steams v. Parker, 469 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1972).
Texas courts view the scope of habeas corpus differently from the federal courts. Entitlement to habeas corpus relief under Texas law requires that a decision in the prisoner's favor on a dispositive issue results in his immediate release. Headrick v. State, 988 S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Ex parte Ruby, 403 S.W.2d 129, 130 (Tex.Crim.App. 1966). In Ex parte Benavides, 801 S.W.2d 535 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, writ dism'd w.o.j.), the court held that an inmate's complaints concerning the terms and conditions of his confinement, including administration of improper medication, were not the type of "restraint" necessary for habeas corpus relief. Because relator only seeks reassignment from a psychiatric unit to the general prison population and withdrawal of his involuntary medication, a decision in his favor would not result in his immediate release. That being true, he is not entitled in habeas corpus relief in state court.
For the reasons stated, the trial court's order must be, and is hereby, affirmed.
John T. Boyd
Chief Justice
Publish.
1. Parenthetically, we note that in his pro se brief, relator makes no contention, nor does he give any indication, that the medication impaired his ability to present his claims to this court.
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
miHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
NO. 07-11-00105-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
APRIL 12, 2011
IN RE JESUS ALEMAN, JR.
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Jesus Aleman, Jr., has filed an Application for Writ of Mandamus requesting this Court to order the Lubbock County District Clerk to provide him a transcription of the grand jury proceedings that led to his indictment along with an identification of the race, sex, and age of the grand jurors. Additionally, Aleman seeks an order compelling production of the Parole Records from the Dallas V Parole Office.[1] We deny the petition.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3[2] identifies the requirements for a petition for writ of mandamus filed in this Court. Aleman has failed to comply with these requirements. Rule 52.3(a) requires that a petition must include a complete list of all parties and the names and addresses of all counsel. Aleman does not include any such list. In fact, the only identification of the party against whom he seeks relief is Barbara Sucsy, the District Clerk of Lubbock County. However, because Alemans petition is seeking transcriptions from grand jury proceedings and records from a parole office, we do not see how the one identified party is capable of providing the records Aleman seeks. Rule 52.3(b) requires that the petition include a table of contents with references to the pages of the petition and an indication of the subject matter of each issue or point raised in the petition. Alemans petition includes no table of contents. Rule 52.3(c) requires that a petition include an index of authorities in which all authorities cited in the petition are arranged alphabetically and the page(s) upon which the authorities are cited is indicated. Aleman=s petition includes no index of authorities. Rule 52.3(d) requires a statement of the case that includes a concise description of the nature of the underlying proceeding. Aleman=s petition does not contain a statement of the case, and does not include a concise description of the nature of the underlying proceeding. Clearly, Aleman is seeking a transcript of the grand jury proceedings from which he was indicted; however, Aleman does not identify the underlying criminal cause number or in any other manner identify the underlying criminal proceeding from which he seeks the requested records. Rule 52.3(e) requires the petition include a statement regarding the basis of this Courts jurisdiction. Alemans petition does not include a jurisdictional statement.[3] Rule 52.3(f) requires the petition include a concise statement of all issues or points presented for relief. Alemans petition includes no such statement. Rule 52.3(g) requires the petition include a statement of facts supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record. Alemans petition does not include a statement of facts. Rule 52.3(h) requires a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities. Alemans argument is reasonably clear and concise. However, his citations to legal authority do not support his entitlement to the relief that he seeks. Finally, Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires that the appendix to the petition include a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or other document showing the matter complained of. Aleman has not included an appendix to his petition. As each of these items are required in a petition for writ of mandamus and Aleman has failed to comply with these requirements, we may not grant the relief that he requests.
Additionally, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5 requires that, at or before the time that a document is filed with this Court, a copy of the document must be served on all parties to the proceeding. Alemans petition includes a certificate of service, but it indicates only that a copy of the petition was served on this Court. There is no certification that the petition was served on the respondent or any other party to this original proceeding.[4]
As Aleman=s petition for writ of mandamus does not comply with the requirements of Rule 52.3, we deny the petition.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
[1] Beyond this request for these records, Aleman does not specify which records he is seeking nor does he make any attempt to identify any authority that would entitle him to production of these documents.
[2] Further citation of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure will be by reference to ARule __.@
[3] The absence of this statement is particularly noteworthy in this petition. A court of appeals has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court judges within the court of appeals=s district and all writs necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004). However, Aleman requests relief against the Lubbock County District Clerk rather than a judge. Since district clerks are not expressly included within the jurisdictional reach of our mandamus authority, we may only issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk if the relator shows that issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Cummins, No. 07-04-0354-CV, 2004 Tex.App. LEXIS 8107, at *2 (Tex.App.BAmarillo Sept. 2, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex.App.BSan Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Alemans petition makes no effort to make such a showing.
[4] As Aleman failed to include a complete list of all parties and the names and addresses of all counsel in his petition, we are uncertain who the proper parties to this original proceeding might be.
Arthur X. Carson v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas ... , 112 F.3d 818 ( 1997 )
Peyton v. Rowe , 88 S. Ct. 1549 ( 1968 )
In Re Coronado , 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 4691 ( 1998 )
Headrick v. State , 988 S.W.2d 226 ( 1999 )
Ex Parte Benavides , 1990 Tex. App. LEXIS 2518 ( 1990 )
Patrick J. Stearns v. Jacob J. Parker , 469 F.2d 1090 ( 1972 )
Leahy v. Estelle , 371 F. Supp. 951 ( 1974 )