In Re John Roberts, Jr.--Appeal from 1A District Court of Newton County (per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00630-CV _________________ IN RE JOHN ROBERTS, JR. ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION John Roberts, Jr. seeks mandamus relief to compel the trial court to rule on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to recuse two judges other than the judge presiding in the trial court. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 145; Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a. We deny the petition. We notified Roberts that the form and contents of his petition must comply with the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and provided thirty days to amend the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. We also notified Roberts that he must certify that he served a copy of the petition upon the real parties in interest, and we explained that the real parties in interest are the opposing parties in the underlying case. 1 Roberts filed an amended petition for writ of mandamus. In the amended petition, Roberts states that he is the real party in interest. Roberts fails to identify the actual real parties in interest or prove that he provided a copy of the petition to counsel for the real parties in interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.2, 52.3. Roberts failed to demonstrate his compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5. See In re Lewis, No. 07-04-432 CV, 2004 WL 2074306, *1 (Tex. App. Amarillo Sep. 17, 2004, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]); In re Hensler, 27 S.W.3d 719, 720 (Tex. App. Waco 2000, orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. After having been provided with an opportunity to file a proper mandamus petition, Roberts has not demonstrated his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Opinion Delivered December 22, 2011 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.